Main Restorations Software Audio/Jukebox/MP3 Everything Else Buy/Sell/Trade
Project Announcements Monitor/Video GroovyMAME Merit/JVL Touchscreen Meet Up Retail Vendors
Driving & Racing Woodworking Software Support Forums Consoles Project Arcade Reviews
Automated Projects Artwork Frontend Support Forums Pinball Forum Discussion Old Boards
Raspberry Pi & Dev Board controls.dat Linux Miscellaneous Arcade Wiki Discussion Old Archives
Lightguns Arcade1Up --- Bug Reports --- Site News

Unread posts | New Replies | Recent posts | Rules | Chatroom | Wiki | File Repository | RSS | Submit news

  

Author Topic: Good debate  (Read 10233 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Good debate
« on: September 30, 2004, 10:32:54 pm »
I hope they all are. :)

GGKoul

  • Cheesecake Apprentice
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4723
  • Last login:July 23, 2019, 05:47:30 pm
  • I was once a big man!! -4700 posts later...
Re:Good debate
« Reply #1 on: September 30, 2004, 11:45:43 pm »
Bush looked like he didn't want to be there... But it was good

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Good debate
« Reply #2 on: October 01, 2004, 01:48:40 am »
Here's a little something I threw together tonight...

DougHillman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 292
  • Last login:September 13, 2004, 07:39:18 pm
Re:Good debate
« Reply #3 on: October 01, 2004, 02:55:56 am »
I think this debate is remeniscent of the Kennedy / Nixon debate.  Or the Terwilliger/Quimby showdown.

As a fairly impartial observer I don't feel that, based on what was said, either candidate did a particularly good job.  Certainly not good enough to be labeled a clearcut "winner."

Bush dwelled far too much on the "waffeling" point.  Mention it a few times here and there, but not every single time you get to talk.  I think that Bush made most of the points he needed to make, but he sounded sorta petulant and looked smug the entire time.  

Kerry didn't say anything.  Sure he said alot of, "I'm gonna do this, I'm gonna do that, and I'm gonna do it in 6 months or 4 years, yada yada yada."  That's all nice and good.  Solid platform.   Now, how exactly are you planning on doing that?  I don't want to have to go to johnkerry.com to find out.   Unless you wanna explain it to us, it just seems like smoke & mirrors.  

Undoubtably, Kerry is the better debater.  I don't think anyone would ever question that.  So, of course he comes across as more poised and polished.  Bush is far from being a great public speaker and it showed.  Repititious and he was obviously a little lost for words at times.  As I said, he looked smug and acted condescending.  Certainly not the way to win friends.  

But is this really what intelligent people base their decisions upon though?  How the candidate looked & sounded during the debate?


This "debate" was really little more than an extended campaign commercial for each candidate and the dialog between the two smacked more of grade school name calling than it did a true debate.  Hopefully the "town hall" format of the next one will get us some more insight into how either of them actually plans to accomplish their stated goals.  We KNOW you both want essentially the same thing.  A safer America, an American withdrawal from a free & democratic Iraq, the cessation of terrorist attacks, etc.  Let us know how you're going to accomplish that, and let us vote upon which we think is more viable.

D
If you can't be a good example at least try to be a horrible reminder.

DYNAGOD

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1164
  • Last login:May 21, 2012, 07:01:55 am
  • sprites taste better than polygons
Re:Good debate
« Reply #4 on: October 01, 2004, 08:35:15 am »
Quote
Kerry didn't say anything.  Sure he said alot of, "I'm gonna do this, I'm gonna do that, and I'm gonna do it in 6 months or 4 years, yada yada yada."  That's all nice and good.  Solid platform.  Now, how exactly are you planning on doing that?  I don't want to have to go to johnkerry.com to find out.  Unless you wanna explain it to us, it just seems like smoke & mirrors

and how exactly was he supposed to lay down the intricate details and how to's of a multifaceted 4 year plan in a 120 seconds?
he said, heres what im going to do,theres obviously not enough time to get into it now, if you want the fine details go here..
i think thats anything but smoke and mirrors and shows he had a plan to give you that information and the answers you want.
smoke and mirrors??? as john stewart said, maybe it was my tv..

« Last Edit: October 01, 2004, 08:37:44 am by DYNAGOD »
Enjoying the fruits of technological obsolescence one game at a time...

Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Good debate
« Reply #5 on: October 01, 2004, 08:50:37 am »
It would be nice if there was more time allotted so each could expand on their ideas/explanations, but at least it's this is a start.  Personally, I'd rather see each candidate (and Nader too, he's always had some good points) talk for 15 minutes each night.  They could cover more topics and be able to explain in more detail.  I also think people would be more involved and more aware of where each candidate stood on all the issues.

Is "more aware" proper english?  Sure doesn't sound right... but you get my point.

abrannan

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 868
  • Last login:July 25, 2012, 11:32:14 am
  • Building a cabinet in perpetuity since 2002
Re:Good debate
« Reply #6 on: October 01, 2004, 09:13:16 am »

But is this really what intelligent people base their decisions upon though?  How the candidate looked & sounded during the debate?


This "debate" was really little more than an extended campaign commercial for each candidate and the dialog between the two smacked more of grade school name calling than it did a true debate.  

No, intelligent people don't base their decisions on how a candidate looked and sounded during the debate, but a large portion of America does.  The debates are won and lost by body language, and certain looks, and the inevitable one-liners and pot-shots.  I don't think I've ever seen a candidate spell out exactly how something is going to be accomplished in a debate, and I don't expect to ever see it.  
If no one feeds the trolls, we're just going to keep eating your goats.

Dartful Dodger

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3488
  • Last login:July 23, 2012, 11:21:39 pm
  • Newer isn't always better.
Re:Good debate
« Reply #7 on: October 01, 2004, 10:54:22 am »
This debate was as informative as any of these political topics.
I don't think anyone would have crossed over to either side because of it.   Which is good, because that means Bush will win.

fredster

  • Grand Prophet of Arcadeology
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2311
  • Last login:February 16, 2019, 04:28:53 pm
  • It's all good!
Re:Good debate
« Reply #8 on: October 01, 2004, 11:05:48 am »
Hey, I'm a Bush Supporter, but Kerry was very good.

Kerry did what he needed to do to swing the independents in this one.

It was Bush's to loose, and he didn't come off that well.  I'd have to give the appearance and presentation to Kerry, hands down.  Bush was haulting in his presentation and really looked tired.

Kerry finally seemed to put together a really clear picture of his support/non support of the Iraq war.

I was interesting to note that Gitmo was not mentioned.  

The spin teams are in full force on both sides.

I'm glad there are two more.  Bush didn't pull this one out.
King of the Flying Monkeys from the Dark Side

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Good debate
« Reply #9 on: October 01, 2004, 11:05:56 am »
Then how do you explain the fact that every single independent focus group came out leaning Kerry after the debate?

MAME nut

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
  • Last login:January 30, 2017, 03:38:24 pm
Re:Good debate
« Reply #10 on: October 01, 2004, 11:06:07 am »
Hey Mr. C.....

Do you have any more LIBERAL sources that can say that Kerry won???

 :D  LMFAO  :D

Darkstalker

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 360
  • Last login:June 27, 2010, 12:55:36 am
  • A legend in my spare time...
Re:Good debate
« Reply #11 on: October 01, 2004, 02:18:15 pm »
Quote
But is this really what intelligent people base their decisions upon though?  How the candidate looked & sounded during the debate?

Not entirely, but it is a factor.  The fact that Bush seemed very nervous and irritated towards the end speaks volumes about his character.  He said he was an "easy going guy," but his body language said something entirely different.  It is a high stress situation, and in that regard Kerry very much seemed in control, while Bush stumbled for words and made many nervous gestures.  If he can't be in control during a debate, why would someone feel he would be in control during office?  Bush had that same "deer in headlights" look from that tape of him on 9/11 when Kerry started talking about Nuclear Proliferation.

Quote
Do you have any more LIBERAL sources that can say that Kerry won???

You consider MSNBC and CNN Liberal?  Interesting viewpoint, care to explain why?

Quote
I don't think anyone would have crossed over to either side because of it.  Which is good, because that means Bush will win.

It isn't about getting people to "jump ship" per say, it's about winning undecided voters.

Quote
Sure he said alot of, "I'm gonna do this, I'm gonna do that, and I'm gonna do it in 6 months or 4 years, yada yada yada."  That's all nice and good.  Solid platform.  Now, how exactly are you planning on doing that?

I've got to agree with DYNAGOD here.  Yes, it would be nice for him to explain how he's going to do it, but 90 seconds is hardly enough time to outline exactly all the details on his proposed Iraq exit strategy.

I'm looking forward to the domestic debate and hearing their thoughts on the national debt, housing costs and job outsourcing...
Still in the collecting parts and ideas phase of cabinet building.

namzep

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 226
  • Last login:October 02, 2009, 01:13:40 pm
  • Twilight Zone: the Game
    • Pezchasers - Home of Twilight Zone: the Arcade Game
Re:Good debate
« Reply #12 on: October 01, 2004, 03:11:00 pm »
Oh, I get it.  Media's all liberal blah blah blah.  That tired schtick gets annoying the 7,000,000 time it's tried.  Any impartial observer could see that Kerry won the debate hands down.  Bush looked like a petulant child and kept trying to jump in but, when he did, he didn't have any real point.  It is a truely terrifying thought that the American public might reelect the idiot to a second term.  It really doesn't say anything about the average American voter other than that 1) most are easily misled and 2) voter apathy is the name of the day.  

On the subject of Gitmo and such I believe that they got together (the two sides) and agreed not to bring up certain topics.  Probably to avoid making either candidate looking too bad.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2004, 03:17:22 pm by namzep »

spocktwin

  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 181
  • Last login:January 09, 2020, 07:43:07 pm
  • "Good Luck with That!!!" Timmy Turner
Re:Good debate
« Reply #13 on: October 01, 2004, 03:45:08 pm »
 ;D Anyone and I mean anyone who doesn't know that CNN and MSNBC and certainly CBS is liberal is living under a rock.......it would be like saying that Fox is not conservative in its views.........geez people open your eyes.  I love this country but way too much BS and not enough substance from either side.
Sherlock Holmes lives, just ask Watson

namzep

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 226
  • Last login:October 02, 2009, 01:13:40 pm
  • Twilight Zone: the Game
    • Pezchasers - Home of Twilight Zone: the Arcade Game
Re:Good debate
« Reply #14 on: October 01, 2004, 04:22:53 pm »
CNN is the closest to balanced news network of them all.  It's just that Fox News is so far to the right that others appear left by comparison.

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Good debate
« Reply #15 on: October 01, 2004, 04:26:30 pm »
CNN and MSNBC and certainly CBS is liberal is living under a rock.......

Uh, I'm Liberal and these networks don't speak for me. I wish they did, 'cuz this hillybilly nation needs a good dose of good liberal propoganda. So sorry, next wing-nut conspiracy....

Quote
I love this country but way too much BS and not enough substance from either side.


Btw, unfortunately the majority of people in this country don't seem to want substantive debates. We live in a country where style trumps substance. Believe me, if this would have been a "real" debate, Bush would have come out looking even WORSE (if that's possible). Kerry mopped the floor with the petulant Child-in-Chief with only 90secs to answer.

Dartful Dodger

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3488
  • Last login:July 23, 2012, 11:21:39 pm
  • Newer isn't always better.
Re:Good debate
« Reply #16 on: October 01, 2004, 04:37:47 pm »
CNN is the closest to balanced news network of them all.  It's just that Fox News is so far to the right that others appear left by comparison.

Yeah, I hate how Fox News used fake documents to hurt the guy they were against because the guy they were against was so perfect.

Oh wait, wrong station, and defiantly wrong guy.

But if your one of the easily misled, you'll believe the media telling you they're a balanced, and you probably still believe Kerry has a chance.

whammoed

  • Trade Count: (+4)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2284
  • Last login:March 26, 2020, 09:03:24 am
  • Crack don't smoke itself
    • NiceMite
Re:Good debate
« Reply #17 on: October 01, 2004, 04:51:47 pm »
Quote from Kerry:
"Well, you know, when I talked bout the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?"


Is there any question at all that this election is about the lesser of two evils?  Even one on the candidates thinks so!

Dartful Dodger

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3488
  • Last login:July 23, 2012, 11:21:39 pm
  • Newer isn't always better.
Re:Good debate
« Reply #18 on: October 01, 2004, 05:34:28 pm »
Quote from Kerry:
"Well, you know, when I talked bout the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?"


Is there any question at all that this election is about the lesser of two evils?  Even one on the candidates thinks so!
Making a mistake is worse.

Freeing Iraq was necessary.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2004, 06:01:05 pm by Dartful Dodger »

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #19 on: October 01, 2004, 05:47:20 pm »
The fact that Bush seemed very nervous and irritated towards the end speaks volumes about his character
I'd be HIGHLY interested in what you think "character" means.  I've never even THOUGHT to consider that someone being nervous or irritated would be chalked up to "character", so please expound.  
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

whammoed

  • Trade Count: (+4)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2284
  • Last login:March 26, 2020, 09:03:24 am
  • Crack don't smoke itself
    • NiceMite
Re:Good debate
« Reply #20 on: October 01, 2004, 05:50:16 pm »
Would you qualify either candidate as a masterdebater?

hunky_artist

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 180
  • Last login:April 15, 2006, 06:39:21 pm
  • I want my own arcade controls!
    • www.pennylanepictures.com
Re:Good debate
« Reply #21 on: October 01, 2004, 06:04:20 pm »
Is "more aware" proper english?  Sure doesn't sound right... but you get my point.

don't worry, that's perfect english  

what's the alternative.... awarerer?  ;D
www.pennylanepictures.com

(my art website) :)

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Good debate
« Reply #22 on: October 01, 2004, 07:12:40 pm »
Damn that Liberal media!!!


Fox News has now posted a retraction and apology for the piece with the fabricated Kerry quotes ...

Earlier Friday, FOXNews.com posted an item purporting to contain quotations from Kerry. The item was based on a reporter's partial script that had been written in jest and should not have been posted or broadcast. We regret the error, which occurred because of fatigue and bad judgment, not malice.

The only retraction doesn't name the reporter in question, Carl Cameron, which was noted in the statement Fox News gave TPM this afternoon. EDIT: Carl Cameron is in charge of covering the Kerry campaign for Fox. Fair and Balanced ---my bottom---.

Damn them again!!!

Added three inches to Bush...

mrC
« Last Edit: October 01, 2004, 07:29:58 pm by mr.Curmudgeon »

Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Good debate
« Reply #23 on: October 01, 2004, 08:30:43 pm »
Is that pic comparison for real?  The little lady was saying the Bush campaign requested the podiums be seperated further so he wouldn't look short during the debate.  I think she may have been right.  Too much. ;D

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Good debate
« Reply #24 on: October 01, 2004, 10:49:34 pm »
As a fairly impartial observer I don't feel that, based on what was said, either candidate did a particularly good job.  Certainly not good enough to be labeled a clearcut "winner."

Kerry delivered well.  He did not do well in substance.  His "position that I've always had on Iraq", isn't.  

He called the war a mistake... and then, 15 secomds later, said that the troops had not died for a mistake.  

Well, John - Mistake?  or not?  
When you decide, again, let us know.



Kerry didn't say anything...

Kerry's Plan for Iraq is to do exactly what the Bush administration is already doing - just "better".

No details on the "better".

And in making the argument that Bush did not put together a "broad coalition" does nothing but belittle the efforts of the countries that ARE there.  38 states are at present supporting the effort, one way or another - 18 of which are members of NATO.

I'm not sure how you get more from your allies when you belittle their efforts - unless you're talking about France and Germany, who have said repeatedly that they will not send troops.

90% of the cost in Iraq is being paid by the US.   Thats more or less the case in every 'coalition' we've been in since WW2 - including the ones in which the French helped out with.

Unilaterally invaded Iraq?  With at least 3 allies (4 if you count Canadian exchange offisers that the Canadian army decided to let stay w/ the US units) with boots on the ground?   How could it have been "unilateral"?

Passed the global test?  Whats that mean?
Prove to the world that we're right about doing something?  Doesnt that necessitate that they have to 'OK' our reason for war?   If not, why not?


In all honesty, whenever Kerry takes a position on Iraq, et al, if you arent wondering how long it will be before he changes it, you REALLY arent thinking.

95% of steamship containers -arent- inspected when they reach the US.  This is because the USCS identifies potentially threatening shipments -before- they reach the US and then pull them to the side for inspectons.  There isnt any way you cant inspect them all, and there isnt any need to inspect them all - the insinuation that you have to is simply playing on fear born of ignorance (like they do with "assault weapons"  ;D).

Cut taxes at the expense of Homeland Security?  Can anyone honestly say that any tax cut kept us from spending a dime on anything?  Of course not.  The argument that HS funds were limited by the "tax cuts for the rich" is nothing but class warfare and playing to more fears borne of ignorance.


















Floyd10

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re:Good debate
« Reply #25 on: October 02, 2004, 12:05:24 am »
Damn that Liberal media!!!


Fox News has now posted a retraction and apology for the piece with the fabricated Kerry quotes ...

Earlier Friday, FOXNews.com posted an item purporting to contain quotations from Kerry. The item was based on a reporter's partial script that had been written in jest and should not have been posted or broadcast. We regret the error, which occurred because of fatigue and bad judgment, not malice.

The only retraction doesn't name the reporter in question, Carl Cameron, which was noted in the statement Fox News gave TPM this afternoon. EDIT: Carl Cameron is in charge of covering the Kerry campaign for Fox. Fair and Balanced <auto-censored>.

Damn them again!!!

Added three inches to Bush...
mrC

Actually the AFP one is doctored. I've studied it carefully

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Good debate
« Reply #26 on: October 02, 2004, 01:36:56 am »
playing on fear born of ignorance

Isn't that what Bush/Cheney have been campaigning on since 9-11??? They should make that their d*mn slogan: Bush/Cheney '04: Playing On Fear Born Of Ignorance!

Anyhow, the thing that sticks out to me now (mostly care of Joe Scarbourough's commentary) is this:

This man, George W. Bush, the President of the United States, has sent our soliders - our friends, our family, our sons, daughters, sisters, brothers, wives and husbands - to a distant land to face death every day under a blinding desert sun for his ill begotten war. Over a thousand have been killed, tens of thousands more have been battered and maimed. Their blood and gore running through the dirty streets...and he can't STAND UP STRAIGHT behind the podium and face this nation for a measley 90-f'in minutes with the pride and dignity our soldiers, and our citizens deserve?

Are these soldiers lives and their families loss not worth his time?

No matter what you think of either candidates style and substance, it was obvious that Bush didn't want to be there being forced to answer questions. Given his behavior, you have to ask yourself, how can you respect a president who wants to lead a nation, but not answer to it's people?


mrC


« Last Edit: October 02, 2004, 02:07:05 am by mr.Curmudgeon »

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Good debate
« Reply #27 on: October 02, 2004, 08:32:49 am »
Posted by: mr.Curmudgeon
Isn't that what Bush/Cheney have been campaigning on since 9-11??? They should make that their d*mn slogan: Bush/Cheney '04: Playing On Fear Born Of Ignorance!

Yeah.  Terrorists?  They arent a threat to the US.  You just imagined all the attacks, both before and after 9/11.

Did you ever think, for just a minute, that maybe you -should- be afraid of the terrorists, what they want to do, and what they'd do to you, your family and your country, if they had the chance?



Given his behavior, you have to ask yourself, how can you respect a president who wants to lead a nation, but not answer to it's people?

If this is the best you can muster after the entire 90 min debate, either -for- Kerry or -against- Bush, then Kerry has problems.   Not that I mind.


DougHillman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 292
  • Last login:September 13, 2004, 07:39:18 pm
Re:Good debate
« Reply #28 on: October 02, 2004, 10:32:21 am »
On a completely off-topic aside, TA, what year is yours?  My first car when I was 16 was a 7 year old 1979.  Brown, tan cloth interior, gold birds, T-tops, 403 automatic.  Traded it for a '76 with T's and a 455 4-speed.  Have had a coupla others along the way, including a '75 with a 400 and a '73 Firebird with a 350.

D
If you can't be a good example at least try to be a horrible reminder.

Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Good debate
« Reply #29 on: October 02, 2004, 10:44:44 am »
http://www.factcheck.org

That site shows how the Bush campaign has misquoted Kerry regarding his stand on Iraq.  It shows that, as Kerry has always said, his position has NOT changed.

It's not a "Pro-Kerry" site by any means, it's a site that rips on ads done by both parties pointing out the flaws in the arguements.  It should clear up a few things around here on both guys and should be mandatory reading before voting IMO.

TA: "maybe you -should- be afraid of the terrorists, what they want to do, and what they'd do to you, your family and your country, if they had the chance"
Was I afraid before 9/11?  No.  Am I afraid now?  No.  Do I feel safer with the changes made since 9/11?  No.  Let me explain.  If these terrorists group want to hurt me or my family, they'll find a way to do it.  There's nothing we as a Nation can do to *stop* terrorism.  These groups are generations deep in the stuff.  It's like the Nazi wann-be's and the KKK.  Too blinded by hate to see reason.
You included an interesting phrase in your qoute "...if they had the chance".  In general, do you feel people should be held accountable for actions they may do "if they had the chance" or for actions they have done?

shmokes

  • Just think of all the suffering in this world that could have been avoided had I just been a little better informed. :)
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10471
  • Last login:September 24, 2016, 06:50:42 pm
  • Don't tread on me.
    • Jake Moses
Re:Good debate
« Reply #30 on: October 02, 2004, 12:22:39 pm »
The thing I loved most was when Bush would actually ask for an extension, and then have absolutely nothing to say.  
Check out my website for in-depth reviews of children's books, games, and educational apps for the iPad:

Best Kid iPad Apps

spocktwin

  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 181
  • Last login:January 09, 2020, 07:43:07 pm
  • "Good Luck with That!!!" Timmy Turner
Re:Good debate
« Reply #31 on: October 02, 2004, 12:43:12 pm »
 :) TA what year do you have.....I bought a 78 t-top in '81 and have had it ever since.  I have the 400T/A engine and she is the second lady in my life.......have to give the wife top billing even though I have had the T/A for much longer then I have been married to her ha ha
Sherlock Holmes lives, just ask Watson

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #32 on: October 02, 2004, 12:46:02 pm »
http://www.factcheck.org

That site shows how the Bush campaign has misquoted Kerry regarding his stand on Iraq.  It shows that, as Kerry has always said, his position has NOT changed.
Now, I don't expect you to lay out Bush's defense also, but that little snippet is almost as deliberately misleading as MrC and Kerry himself!

I'll also HELP you and link to the actual story you're referring to.
Quote
Kerry has never wavered from his support for giving Bush authority to use force in Iraq, nor has he changed his position that he, as President, would not have gone to war without greater international support.
That's what they say.  So the debate is about (1) him always giving Bush authority to use force in Iraq.  Bush did use force in Iraq.  Are you saying, then, that where Kerry DOES differ is "how he (Kerry) would have used that force in Iraq"?  

And (2)Kerry would not have gone to war without greater international support.  Great.  Again and again, that statement is thrown out there.  Again and again, Kerry refuses to pin down (and Bush - I HATE this about him, his unwillingness to be just a LITTLE mean - refuses to ask Kerry) HOW MANY OTHER COUNTRIES WOULD KERRY HAVE    "REQUIRED"     OF THE U.S. BEFORE HE WOULD HAVE WENT TO WAR.  It's one thing to throw out a statement with no real meaning, it's entirely another to say "I would have done it differently" and never state how.  One of you Kerry supporters please tell me, what is YOUR definition of "greater international support".  Skip the "The U.N. needed to agree with and offer support", because the opportunity to do so was there, they dicked around with Sadaam for 10+ years, and Sadaam continually, CONTINUALLY kicked sand in the face of the U.N. and the inspections.  Or, if you just can't help yourself, and that's your pat answer, tell me how much longer we should have continued to let Sadaam go on with the way he guided the inspectors to where he wanted them to go.  What MORE should the U.N. have done to get Sadaam to allow the full disclosure the U.N. was looking for?

And from the site, Cooter, referring to the debates:
Quote
Kerry continued to refer to "the cost" of the Iraq war as $200 billion, when it fact the cost to date is just over $120 billion, according to budget officials. Kerry is counting money that has been appropriated to be spent in the fiscal year that started Friday, Oct. 1. Much of the money Kerry counts has not even been requested formally by the Bush administration, and is only an estimate of what will be sought sometime in the coming year, to be spent later. We've pointed this out before  in detail.
Quote
Kerry said U.S. forces allowed Osama bin Laden to escape in 2001 during the battle at Tora Bora in Afghanistan because the administration "outsourced" fighting to Afghan "warlords." Actually, it's never been clear whether bin Laden actually was at Tora Bora.

It is true that military leaders strongly suspected bin Laden was there, and it is also true that the Pentagon relied heavily on Afghan forces to take on much of the fighting at Tora Bora in an effort to reduce US casualties. But Kerry overstates the case by stating flatly that "we had him surrounded."

Cooter, you say
Quote
Let me explain.  If these terrorists group want to hurt me or my family, they'll find a way to do it.  There's nothing we as a Nation can do to *stop* terrorism.  These groups are generations deep in the stuff.  It's like the Nazi wann-be's and the KKK.  Too blinded by hate to see reason.
So are you then conceding that Kerry's statement that hundreds and thousands of box-cars are making it into our ports without being searched.....you're conceding that it would be ludicrous to think that more money to do so is going to stop the problem...it WOULD help, but it's not the "be all/end all" Kerry paints it to be?  Painting it as something needed to be done INSTANTLY, rather than the way it's being implemented, is an effort to mislead?

I don't think you meant to, but you adopted Bush's statement....We in American have to be right 100% of the time, the terrorists only need to be right ONCE.

Don't worry, that stuff you feel on your skin after agreeing with him, it'll come right off with a little Irish Spring and steel wool....just rub EXTRA hard  ;) ;D
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

Trimoor

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 596
  • Last login:November 18, 2006, 09:01:46 pm
  • I like shooting out of helicopters.
    • Trimoor
Re:Good debate
« Reply #33 on: October 02, 2004, 01:40:33 pm »
If the goal in Iraq was to kill Saddam (they should have picked him off ten years ago when they had the chance), why did they send a huge army in?

It seems like the same thing could be accomplished with four snipers.
Then they wouldn't have to deal with a huge controversial war.

Oh, and has anyone else noticed the interesting trend in presidential elections?
The taller cannidate has always won. (really)

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Good debate
« Reply #34 on: October 02, 2004, 02:00:55 pm »

Yeah.  Terrorists?  They arent a threat to the US.  You just imagined all the attacks, both before and after 9/11.

Did you ever think, for just a minute, that maybe you -should- be afraid of the terrorists, what they want to do, and what they'd do to you, your family and your country, if they had the chance?


You're the one with all the guns, seems to me you're pretty adept at being scared. Myself, no...I'm not afraid of terrorists. I want to kill them.

If you think podium pounding and chest puffing will lead us on a path to victory, and you're comfortable with a false sense of security for you and your loved ones, while our perceived imperialistic policies increase the ranks of fundamentalist groups around the globe...then vote Bush.

I, however, will remain vigilant and informed, aware of the realities of the global war on terror without allowing fear to cloud my judgement. I want a president that will do the same. I want a smarter, more accountable president. I want a man who knows the horrors of war, not a privileged one who shirked his duty. I want Kerry to lead this nation using informed diplomacy first, force if absolutely necessary. Any other approach, and the terrorists have already won. I'm sorry you can't understand that, maybe you should go to the shootin' range and pop off a couple of rounds, I'm sure that'll show them darn evil-doers and it'll make you feel safer in the process.

Like I've said before, I used to be scared. 9-11 terrified me. But not anymore...I realize fear has gotten our nation into much more danger. Fear is not great foreign policy.

Quote
Given his behavior, you have to ask yourself, how can you respect a president who wants to lead a nation, but not answer to it's people?

If this is the best you can muster after the entire 90 min debate, either -for- Kerry or -against- Bush, then Kerry has problems.   Not that I mind.

Right. *Kerry* has problems. Somehow I'm not suprised you wouldn't take issue with a weak little chickenhawk who'd send our troops to die and not have the courage to face the nation with dignity. Obviously you're comfortable with giving Bush another mulligan. Seems about right. Sure it's not Clinton's fault? or something?
« Last Edit: October 02, 2004, 02:05:13 pm by mr.Curmudgeon »

Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Good debate
« Reply #35 on: October 02, 2004, 02:23:49 pm »
http://www.factcheck.org/ is great resource as I said.  It is not for either candidate.  That's why everyone should read it.

On Iraq:
1- Kerry wanted military action to be the LAST resort.  He, like I, feel Bush did it too early.  IE: Cooter says: "I personally support military action against North Korea.  Just not today."  Taken out of context it would look confusing.  What my "Kerry comment" (tm) means is that if N. Korea needs a beat down, let's do it.  But that doesn't mean to do it later today.  Putting our soldiers on foreign soil is a big decision with major consequences.  It isn't something we should be doing without thinking it through.
2- Greater International Support defined - Cooter says: "Greater International Support is other countries commiting the level of resources that we are".
Money:  Where is it?  Troops:  Where are they?  Commitment: Why is everyone leaving?
What percentage of our military is in Iraq?  What percentage of our GNP is being spent there? Compare that to the percentage of our "coalition" allies.  The "coalition" Bush put together is a joke.  Then he told the other countries they couldn't help rebuild.  Then they awarded all (and I mean ALL) the construction contracts to the company Cheney worked for prior to becoming VP.  That's some little Boy's Club there...

I don't know anything about boxcars.  Never shipped or received one.  But I do know there's no such thing as a "be all/end all".  Whatever we do, we will be struck by terrorists again.  Your vote either way will not change this fact.  I agree that more precautions we take will help though.  The sooner the better.

"We in American [sic] have to be right 100% of the time, the terrorists only need to be right ONCE"
If we're not right 100% of the time, then we are wrong.  Hopefully, we learn and make changes to try and fix the problem.  To me, Bush is wrong on several issues not just Iraq or Terrorism (they are different topics).  I'm making a change.  No steel wool required.  ;)

"Actually the AFP one is doctored"
How tall are they?  That would settle it.  I know Bush is shorter, noticed it on the split screen during the debate by referencing the background.

Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Good debate
« Reply #36 on: October 02, 2004, 02:29:02 pm »
Haha
Chickenhawk

**please not the subliminal message included in this message**

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #37 on: October 02, 2004, 06:04:21 pm »
I want Kerry to lead this nation using informed diplomacy first, force if absolutely necessary
What information would you have Kerry use in order for him to be able to use "informed diplomacy"?
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Good debate
« Reply #38 on: October 02, 2004, 06:17:39 pm »
I want Kerry to lead this nation using informed diplomacy first, force if absolutely necessary
What information would you have Kerry use in order for him to be able to use "informed diplomacy"?

Well, simple. The very same information that Bush and Co. completely ignored in the rush to war with Iraq. The information coming from the inspectors on the ground in Iraq Re: lack of WMD, the information provided by various experts regarding the disasters that we are now forced to deal with on a daily basis in Iraq (Some of that information coming from Bush I, and Cheney themselves). Kerry promises to heed these things FIRST and foremost when making decisions of such importance. Bush has already proven he feels above such petty things. He wanted the war, not the information saying it was a terribly disasterous idea. He failed. He's fired.

Looks like the dam is breaking, Kerry now leads in the polls: http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1nw.htm (via: Drudge, of all people.)

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #39 on: October 02, 2004, 06:53:29 pm »
http://www.factcheck.org/ is great resource as I said.  It is not for either candidate.  That's why everyone should read it.
I agree with you on that point.  If, however, you want to make a claim based on what they say, it would be nice (some might say intellectually honest) to link to the exact story you are referring to, rather than make a charge based on a website's story, and to let others muddle around trying to figure out what story you are referring to.  If someone (let's say Sephroth, since he was looking for info) hasn't looked into the info yet, and you post about something without giving him the info you are referring to, what if he read a story that KINDA pertained to your view, yet didn't agree with yours?  You're only hurting yourself by indirectly linking to your story/fact/statistic.  
Quote
On Iraq:
1- Kerry wanted military action to be the LAST resort.  He, like I, feel Bush did it too early.  IE: Cooter says: "I personally support military action against North Korea.  Just not today."  Taken out of context it would look confusing.
[/sup]no, the context is factually correct as you have stated it.  It just needs further fleshing out, as in (and this is the "context" everyone is searching for - the ducking of answering this) "IF you support military action, but only as a last resort, WHEN do you feel we should go to it....if not a mythical "today", then WHEN....it's the WHEN, THE WHEN, THE WHEN that is Kerry's major problem.  The mythical "when we have exhausted all "informed diplomacy" is ANOTHER cloud-in-the-sky notion that never gives a straigh answer.  

You can ALWAYS fall back on "I'm for it, just not now".  It's the unwillingness to lay out WHEN HE WOULD think it necessary that shapes his "flip-flop" image to a finely-honed point.
Quote
But that doesn't mean to do it later today.  Putting our soldiers on foreign soil is a big decision with major consequences.  It isn't something we should be doing without thinking it through.
[/sub]if you honestly think that decision to put our soldiers into Iraq was done at the drop of a hat, you're misinformed beyond belief.  The logistics alone dictate that it couldn't be done.  Also, I'd have to question what you were doing leading up to this war, because it obviously wasn't reading/watching/listening to ANY media of any sort.  This was written/reported/spoke about ad nauseum.  By what definition do you think we went into Iraq without thinking it through?
Quote
2- Greater International Support defined - Cooter says: "Greater International Support is other countries commiting the level of resources that we are".
Money:  Where is it?  Troops:  Where are they?  Commitment: Why is everyone leaving?
What percentage of our military is in Iraq?  What percentage of our GNP is being spent there? Compare that to the percentage of our "coalition" allies.
[/sub]To "blanket answer" your points - we have more than others.  

So you are basing your definition of support on how much other countries are willing to give us.  It's about fairness.  I see.  Is it fair that we also send aid to other countries in all sorts of fashions (money, food, military aid)?  By that same ludicrous standard, we also should never have gone into Croatia, Haiti is someplace that should be dismissed....the "fairness" of others actions...dynamite definition.
Quote
Then he told the other countries they couldn't help rebuild.
Again, the facts you have to support this would be nice, because all I heard was...and let me put this so you can understand it....the countries WITH us in fighting this war could help, after all, it's only "fair"....FRANCE, GERMANY, RUSSIA....BEAT IT".

I don't know how you manage to (well, I know it doesn't support your position, so it IS convenient to do so) overlook the Oil for Food programs, or the sale of arms and supplies to Sadaam...see, those countries were "getting their share" before we went in there.  It just so happened to be at the expense of the Iraqi people...See, Sadaam only "trickled down" the torture and poverty, not the money he was making from these deals  ::)
Quote
Then they awarded all (and I mean ALL) the construction contracts to the company Cheney worked for prior to becoming VP.
facts to back this up, being such a strongly worded statement, please
::)
Quote
But I do know there's no such thing as a "be all/end all".  Whatever we do, we will be struck by terrorists again.  Your vote either way will not change this fact.
But Kerry made it sound as if Bush was missing the boat big time on that one area, and that if he's elected, he'll "do it better" than Bush.  You mean to tell me that if Kerry is elected, we could be struck again?!?!
 ANOTHER RINGING ENDORSEMENT FOR KERRY ::)
I'm voting for the guy who'll DO something about it, instead of talk to nation after nation hoping they'll offer something "fair" to help us out ::)

Quote
If we're not right 100% of the time, then we are wrong.  Hopefully, we learn and make changes to try and fix the problem.
but, as you so clearly stated above, we can't EVER be right, since "we will be struck again".  Again, why should Americans allow Kerry to try to fix a problem that is, by YOUR definition, unfixable?  

As for your other problems with Bush, we're all MORE than happy to discuss them ( ;) No duh, hey?  Even MrC seems to have decided "If you can't shush 'em, join 'em" )  We even allow the reddest of neck amongst us to speak!

Peace and bong hits to everyone
DK
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

Floyd10

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re:Good debate
« Reply #40 on: October 02, 2004, 06:54:45 pm »
*lights up*

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Good debate
« Reply #41 on: October 02, 2004, 07:12:00 pm »
DougHillman
On a completely off-topic aside, TA, what year is yours?

1979, Nocturn (dark blue).  T-Tops, 66,000 miles.
 I warmed up the 403 w/ cam, heads, intake, headers.  THM 350 auto, 3.08 rear gears.  She'll run mid 13s and will pull hard all the way to redline (~135mph).  Since I did the work myself, I carry a fire extingusher  :o

In college I had an '81 w/ a 301 turbo - when my dad sold it out from under me I swore I'd have another; my wife bought me the '79 for our 10th anniversary.



 

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #42 on: October 02, 2004, 07:20:12 pm »
The very same information that Bush and Co. completely ignored in the rush to war with Iraq. The information coming from the inspectors on the ground in Iraq Re: lack of WMD, the information provided by various experts regarding the disasters that we are now forced to deal with on a daily basis in Iraq (Some of that information coming from Bush I, and Cheney themselves).
So you mean Bush should have heeded the information he ignored...and by "Bush and Co"....is the "Co" short for "Congress", or "Senate Intelligence Committee" or "John Kerry"...you mean the information THEY ALL HAD?

How do you swallow, what with all the crap you're full of?

Various experts...you mean the intelligence services of countless, DID I SAY COUNTLESS?, yes, countless OTHER COUNTRIES WHO BELIEVED AND STATED THAT SADAAM HAD WMD'S.  Maybe shouting it will get through to you, but I doubt it.  This "info" and "experts" you seek....Kerry had the same stuff to go on, but somehow you believe that NOW he'll pay attention.  I suppose hindsight, in your book, is the way to go about getting things done.  

The information coming from the inspectors!  Beautiful.  You mean the inspectors that were all but led around Iraq on a leash by Sadaam?  What's next, you personally know the third gunman on the grassy knoll?

"regarding the disasters that we are now forced to deal with on a daily basis"  So the beheadings were foretold?  Pray tell, when did Nostradamus write of these things?  Or perhaps you're referring to another "disaster"?  WAIT, I'VE GOT IT!  You're referring to them guarding the Oil stations!  Ya know, guarding them from BEING LIT ON FIRE TAKING RESOURCES AWAY FROM FIGHTING TERRORISTS!....or is that just another crock of shite Kerry threw out there to deflect the spotlight away from his "I'm for it, just not right now" stance?

And now you're willing to quote Drudge ::)  I'm fairly sure it wasn't you pooh-pooh-ing Drudge and the like, but I'm gonna hold my breath until those who said such things to now step forward and chastise YOU for quoting HIM as your source  :-X

Please take a laptop to show your fellow Kerry campaign volunteers our discussions.  In Wisconsin, there are investigations underway of voter registration fraud, due to missing I.D.'s, incorrectly filled out forms, fraudulent signatures, the same misspelled street name on DOZENS of registrations of folks who supposedly live on that street...perhaps if they see my words, they'll have a change of heart, or perhaps my words will raise doubts in their minds about the legality of what they're doing.  

If you're doing this because you're a conservative, and you feel you HAVE TO in order to combat "the other side's efforts", you should be ashamed of yourself.  We'll elect Bush fairly, just like he was last time (WHOA, MrC...that blood pressure spike is gonna give you a headache there! ;D), and when you're found out, it'll just make folks like MrC more positive than ever that he's doing the right thing.  KNOCK IT OFF!
« Last Edit: October 02, 2004, 07:23:47 pm by DrewKaree »
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Good debate
« Reply #43 on: October 02, 2004, 07:23:01 pm »
That site shows how the Bush campaign has misquoted Kerry regarding his stand on Iraq.  It shows that, as Kerry has always said, his position has NOT changed.

I'm not going to say that everything the Bush campaign has put out is 100% on the level, but -clearly- Kerry has, at the very least, tried to take both sides of the issue - he did it during the debate, at least twice.

When the RNC can put togetther a video of Kerry debating himslf on Iraq, there's at leaset SOME substance to the claim.

 
If these terrorists group want to hurt me or my family, they'll find a way to do it.  There's nothing we as a Nation can do to *stop* terrorism.  These groups are generations deep in the stuff.  It's like the Nazi wann-be's and the KKK.  Too blinded by hate to see reason.

Yes.  They are too blind to see reason.
And so you treat them like a rabid racoon.  Huint them, chase them, corner the, kill them.  You -have- to take the fight to them, as no war has ever been won w/o the winner acting offensively.

How do you stop them from wanting to BE terrorists?  Two ways:
-Convince them that doing so will only lead to their deaths w/o any benefit from same
-Provide them with an alternative - that is, see that they have hope.  The democratization of the ME will go a long wat to doing this.



You included an interesting phrase in your qoute "...if they had the chance".  In general, do you feel people should be held accountable for actions they may do "if they had the chance" or for actions they have done?

When you go after a terrorist group, you're going after people that WILL do something, if they havent already.  I have no problem whatsoever with taking out a terrorist cell or group or whatever before they actually attack us.  None.  Pre-emption against terrorists that could level a city is a necessity - and to hell with a 'global test'.


DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #44 on: October 02, 2004, 07:25:21 pm »
*lights up*
Hey Floyd, where'd you say you lived?  Now that I've got a pic of you to pass around to all the local authorities, I'd like one of 'em to stop by and "check on you"....make sure you're all right  ;D

'Course, "all right" is kinda subjective....I'll ask 'em to make sure your eyes ain't all bloodshot and you don't smell like a patchouli factory  ;)
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Good debate
« Reply #45 on: October 02, 2004, 07:25:26 pm »
It seems like the same thing could be accomplished with four snipers.
Then they wouldn't have to deal with a huge controversial war.


Killing Saddam doesnt change thee regime.  It just puts one of his sons in charge.



TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Good debate
« Reply #46 on: October 02, 2004, 07:29:57 pm »
If you think podium pounding and chest puffing will lead us on a path to victory, and you're comfortable with a false sense of security for you and your loved ones, while our perceived imperialistic policies increase the ranks of fundamentalist groups around the globe...then vote Bush.

This is amusing.
Tell me what Kerry is going to do differently that Bush in the war on terror.



Right. *Kerry* has problems. Somehow I'm not suprised you wouldn't take issue with a weak little chickenhawk who'd send our troops to die and not have the courage to face the nation with dignity.

You forgot to call Bush and "idiot", and make metion that the war is all about profits for Haliburton.  You need to check your DNC talking points more often.

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #47 on: October 02, 2004, 07:37:40 pm »
If you think podium pounding and chest puffing will lead us on a path to victory, and you're comfortable with a false sense of security for you and your loved ones, while our perceived imperialistic policies increase the ranks of fundamentalist groups around the globe...then vote Bush.

This is amusing.
Tell me what Kerry is going to do differently that Bush in the war on terror.
Hellooooo?  Didn't you hear?  He won't go to war unless France, Germany, or Russia will also play...well, mainly just France.  Oh, and he'll ask the terrorists nicely if they'll stop flying planes into our building, pertty please....and if not, he'll ask them again, in sterner language (i.e. dropping the "pretty please").  Then, if they STILL won't give up, he'll ask everyone on each side to form a line and join hands, and whoever wins the World Red Rovertm comptetition will give up to the other side.    ::) ::)
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Good debate
« Reply #48 on: October 02, 2004, 07:39:35 pm »
Well, simple. The very same information that Bush and Co. completely ignored in the rush to war with Iraq.

The war came after 12 years and 17 UNSC resolution, at least three of which stating that Saddam had one final chance.  Thats a "rush to war"?



The information coming from the inspectors on the ground in Iraq Re: lack of WMD

"Iraq has not made the fundamental decision to disarm"
-Hans Blix, 26 FEB 2003.

Given that 1441 put inspectors on the ground in order to detemine of Iraq had complied w/ 1441, et al - what more to you need than the above statement to show that Iraq was not in compliance?


the information provided by various experts regarding the disasters that we are now forced to deal with on a daily basis in Iraq (Some of that information coming from Bush I, and Cheney themselves).

Huh?



Kerry promises to heed these things FIRST and foremost when making decisions of such importance.

Oh, he "promises".

You'll note that Kerry himself argued about the importance of action against Iraq - pre-emptive action w/o UN support if necessary.

The ONLY argument he has here is that he (and his supporters) do not believe that action WAS necessary when it was taken - that it could have waited.

Given that Blix himself said that Iraq had not even made the basic decision to disarm - why wait?



Bush has already proven he feels above such petty things. He wanted the war, not the information saying it was a terribly disasterous idea. He failed. He's fired.

Theres those DNC talkin gpoints again.


TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Good debate
« Reply #49 on: October 02, 2004, 07:44:03 pm »
Hellooooo?  Didn't you hear?  He won't go to war unless France, Germany, or Russia will also play...well, mainly just France.  

Given his line about a "global test", you can't really reach any other conclusion, eh?


DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #50 on: October 02, 2004, 07:49:24 pm »
hey, ya know what we need?  We need shmokes here!  Mebbe I offended him with that "wanna be the Hulk" comment about not being ALL green, just his face.  Shmokes, c'mon buddy!  You, at least, I can stomach reading. sometimes  ;) ;D
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #51 on: October 02, 2004, 07:53:31 pm »
Given his line about a "global test", you can't really reach any other conclusion, eh?
Ya, I'm just wondering which "globe" he's using, because there are an awful lot of countries on his "globe" missing.  

My other question regarding that, what if, in administering this 'global test"....what if some countries fail?  You know, like Oil for Food and selling Sadaam weapons?  Or does Kerry not view those as "failing the global test"?  Seems pretty clear-cut to me that those countries have a decidedly biased interest in us NOT going to....wait, isn't that what happened?  ::)
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Good debate
« Reply #52 on: October 02, 2004, 07:57:47 pm »
So you mean Bush should have heeded the information he ignored...and by "Bush and Co"....is the "Co" short for "Congress", or "Senate Intelligence Committee" or "John Kerry"...you mean the information THEY ALL HAD?

Well, Kerry may have an alabi-
He did miss quite a large number of SIC briefings.

But, liike Bush said:
Kerry didnt mislead anyone.  He made the exact same argument Bush did.

The only difference:
After the fact and once he decided to run for President, Kerry didnt think the point of 'necessity' had been reached - but neither he not anyone else can point out any pre-war reason to think direct military action wasnt needed.

One has to wonder what Kerry (and the other leftists, so happily deriding Bush) thought of Clinton's actions in December 1998, when he made war on Iraq for ~4 days after making the -exact same- argument Bush made in 2002/2003.



How do you swallow, what with all the crap you're full of?

Lots of practice?  ;D



The information coming from the inspectors!

Yeah.  The guys who, in 1998, had a long list of Iraqi WMDs and related materials that were not destoyed or accounted for -and were also not accounted for in the december 2003 declaration.

Where -did- those materials go?





DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #53 on: October 02, 2004, 10:52:18 pm »
Oh, and has anyone else noticed the interesting trend in presidential elections?
The taller cannidate has always won. (really)
Was Bush really taller than Gore?!  Of course, that was a few years ago, but it never occurred to me to look at that.

Anyway, that WOULD explain why the Supreme Court threw the election for Bush.....yer hona, clealy da defendant is da talla of da two men...I rest my case.

Or, lemme guess MrC, Gore was the taller one, they just never said what they determined "won" to be....or else winning means actually winning, BEFORE he lost.  I anxiously await your reply to THIS theory of why Bush won...just to see the convolutions you'll go through to tell us all Bush really didn't win.

Why isn't Gore debating Kerry?  Oh yeah, HE LOST!.  ;D
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Good debate
« Reply #54 on: October 02, 2004, 10:54:48 pm »
just to see the convolutions you'll go through to tell us all Bush really didn't win.

If Bush didnt win the election on 2000, and was, indeed, appointed by the USSC, does that mean he can run for term #3 in 2008?


Note that Kerry might argue that he's taller than Bush, but will likely change his mind.


DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #55 on: October 02, 2004, 11:17:12 pm »
Note that Kerry might argue that he's taller than Bush, but will likely change his mind.
Clearly, he was shorter...BEFORE he was taller!  Waddaya know, a position in which a Kerry flop is actually easy to understand!
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

Floyd10

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re:Good debate
« Reply #56 on: October 03, 2004, 12:10:54 am »
lolol. both suck. Just accept the fact.

GGKoul

  • Cheesecake Apprentice
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4723
  • Last login:July 23, 2019, 05:47:30 pm
  • I was once a big man!! -4700 posts later...
Re:Good debate
« Reply #57 on: October 03, 2004, 12:59:33 am »
lolol. both suck. Just accept the fact.

Dude, your too young to vote.

Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Good debate
« Reply #58 on: October 03, 2004, 01:44:24 am »
TA, if you were president would anyone be alive?

The crap with Halliburton and KBR is well documented.  It's been around for a few years.  They've got their fingers all over the place from Oil to Generals conference rooms to Toilets for the troops.  And then there's the Pentagon audit findings that they overcharged the government hundreds of millions of dollars...

During the 12 years prior to Bush ordering in the troops, what was the consensus of our Government?  They thought it wasn't a good idea.  They couldn't find a way to get back out.  Then Bush came in and said "go".  That WAS a rush to war.  Did he have an exit strategy?  No.  Did the people who had been analyzing it for the past 12+ years say it was a good idea?  No.

Why wait?  See above.  No plan man.  No friends.  nobody has "our back".

And anyone can put together a video editing it to say whatever they want it to.  Have you seen those GI Joe vids floating around the net? :o

Your shoot first ask later attitude can't work in todays world.  People & Nations get held responsible for their actions.  Do you really expect us to create a baby US in Iraq?  And then that the baby will spread across the Middle East and terrorism will be over while Bush is held on our shoulders?  Yeah right.  That whole area has always been a meat grinder and always will be.  Saddam is out, time to concentrate on terrorism (which we should have been doing all along) and Nations that actually pose a threat.

Why did Bush want to go into Iraq (a possible threat) but wants to talk with North Korea (a definate threat)?
Can I start waving my flip flops?

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #59 on: October 03, 2004, 02:37:03 am »
lolol. both suck. Just accept the fact.

Dude, your too young to vote.
Hey there, hi there, ho there!  Ahem....Dude, you're too CANADIAN to vote!  

What difference does it make if he's too young to vote?!  Are you inferring that since he's too young to vote that he should keep out of it?  I don't see any other reason for you to post what you did, and I'm someone who disagrees with James and his politcal views.  

If YOU can post to these threads re: American politics, you CERTAINLY have nothing to say concerning anyone ELSE posting to these threads, other than to disagree with their points.  

I'm surprised you could read his posts, what with that plank in your eye  ::)
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #60 on: October 03, 2004, 03:02:15 am »
The crap with Halliburton and KBR is well documented.  It's been around for a few years.
how many years?  It seems to me the big bad companies were around and getting contracts in the Clinton administration too....where was your wailing and putting on of sackcloth then?  Please, again, since this is so well documented, show it.  For Savuul's sake, back up your charges, man!

Quote
Then Bush came in and said "go".  That WAS a rush to war.  Did he have an exit strategy?  No.  Did the people who had been analyzing it for the past 12+ years say it was a good idea?  No.
so Clinton left, and Bush clapped his hands and said "WHEEEE!" and "pressed the button" ::)  Exit strategy....I think MrC would charge me with "conservative talking points", so I charge you with spewing "liberal talking points".  What was our exit strategy in the World Wars?  What was our exit strategy if the Cuban Missile Crisis went differently?  What was the exit strategy of every war ever gone into?  You guys are NUTS!  You don't go into war and think "now how are we going to get out".  It's WAR!  Things may not turn out how you like it.  For example, you may be losing like crazy, when you thought you would have no problem winning.  Or you may so swiftly defeat your enemy it changes your strategy for what has to be done.  Exit strategy....why not also have a strategy for how to raise the white flag when liberals want us to give up?

Quote
No friends.  nobody has "our back".
you must be right.  It'll please Britain to know you think so little of their country, and the deaths of their people....ya know, it isn't even worth continuing the debate about us going in "with no support".  It's clear we had the support of a number of countries, liberals continuing to degrade their efforts serve to prove they don't care about it, they only believe we should never go to war, EVER.  Oh, unless Clinton wants to run our troops all over the globe, HE had the best "intentions", so that makes it ok.  ::)


Quote
And anyone can put together a video editing it to say whatever they want it to.
I'm sure if you ask MrC, he can find you a few

Quote
Your shoot first ask later attitude can't work in todays world.
how about an "ask for 12+ years before finally acting decisively" attitude?  Still not enough time?  Again and again....HOW MUCH TIME IS ENOUGH?  WHAT would it have taken for you guys to say "yes, NOW'S the time to go to war"?  

Quote
That whole area has always been a meat grinder and always will be.  Saddam is out, time to concentrate on terrorism (which we should have been doing all along) and Nations that actually pose a threat.
Like Haiti?  Your faith in humanity is underwhelming.  If that whole area is a "meat grinder", then who's lying?  You, or Moore?  In his movie, I saw a few minutes or so of "heaven on earth" in Iraq.  Wait, lemme guess, it WAS a good place BEFORE it was bad!

Quote
Why did Bush want to go into Iraq (a possible threat) but wants to talk with North Korea (a definate threat)?
How about:  Why did Kerry want us to gather this "unilateral support" for Iraq but now wants to act bilaterally with North Korea?  Now we've got 5-6 nations working with us on N. Korea, but we should "go it alone".  I can't even say that's a flip flop....he's working on talking out of all orifices, and he's finally found a way to make the nether regions articulate!

Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Good debate
« Reply #61 on: October 03, 2004, 08:26:44 am »
TA, if you were president would anyone be alive?

Yes.  But not for long, should they screw with us.



The crap with Halliburton and KBR is well documented.  It's been around for a few years.

What "crap"?  If its been "well documented", you should be able to specify a few things.

Do you know what Haliburton does?  Specifically?
Or is it just a boogeyman you keep hearing about and fear because you dont understand it?

 

During the 12 years prior to Bush ordering in the troops, what was the consensus of our Government?  They thought it wasn't a good idea.  

Wow.  THATS a stretch.
Do you know when "regime change" in Iraq because official US policy?   It wasnt 2001...



That WAS a rush to war.  

12 years is a "rush".  Right.



Did he have an exit strategy?  No.  Did the people who had been analyzing it for the past 12+ years say it was a good idea?  No.

Did they provide an effective alternative?  No.
What do you do after 12 years of ineffectual policy?  Change it.



Why wait?  See above.  No plan man.  No friends.  nobody has "our back".

"No friends"?
The UK, Australia, and Poland arent our friends?
The other 17 NATO member states arent our friends?
How about the other 20 non- NATO countires currently involved?  Japan?  S. Korea?  The Kiwis?  They arent our friends?

Who has our "back"?  See above.

And please do tell me:   if they dont have our back, who would?



And anyone can put together a video editing it to say whatever they want it to.

That  doesnt make the Kerry video in any way less true or effective.



Your shoot first ask later attitude can't work in todays world.

12 years and 17 reolutions isnt "shooting first".



People & Nations get held responsible for their actions.

Except, apparently, Saddam and Iraq.   If you had your way, anyway.

And when Saddam did give or sell a WMD to the terrorists and they did use them on NYC - you'd blame Bush for doing nothing when he had the chance.



Why did Bush want to go into Iraq (a possible threat) but wants to talk with North Korea (a definate threat)?
Can I start waving my flip flops?


You're arguing that because we invaded one country thats a threat, we have to invade them all.  Faulty logic.

But then, I expect that from people that start their argument with "i hate Bush (R)" and work backwards.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2004, 08:27:41 am by TA Pilot »

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Good debate
« Reply #62 on: October 03, 2004, 12:03:59 pm »
Fundamental question for Drew and TA:

So, where are the weapons of mass destruction?

Thank you. End of story.

Quote
And when Saddam did give or sell a WMD to the terrorists and they did use them on NYC - you'd blame Bush for doing nothing when he had the chance.

Man you are THICK boy. HE.DID.NOT.HAVE.THEM.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2004, 12:17:58 pm by mr.Curmudgeon »

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Good debate
« Reply #63 on: October 03, 2004, 12:08:38 pm »
DID I SAY COUNTLESS?, yes, countless OTHER COUNTRIES WHO BELIEVED AND STATED THAT SADAAM HAD WMD'S

Awww, here we see the Freeper mentality in full effect. How cute. Somehow everyone else is at fault for believing FALSE INFORMATION disseminated by the United States of America. It's THEIR fault the Bush administration lied. It's their fault they had faith in the greatest super power on the planet. It's their fault they'd be so foolish as to trust our president.

We'll as they say in Texas (and probably Tennessee), fool me once........you can't get fooled again!

DrewKaree: Lowering the bar for the U.S.!!!

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Good debate
« Reply #64 on: October 03, 2004, 12:14:45 pm »

Bush has already proven he feels above such petty things. He wanted the war, not the information saying it was a terribly disasterous idea. He failed. He's fired.

Theres those DNC talkin gpoints again.


Talking Points? It happens to be the truth.

"NY Times Says Cheney and Rice Knowingly Misled Us About Iraq's Nuclear Capability" (NYTIMES - October 3, 2004
)

"Senior administration officials repeatedly failed to fully disclose the contrary views of America's leading nuclear scientists, The Times found. They sometimes overstated even the most dire intelligence assessments of the tubes, yet minimized or rejected the strong doubts of their own experts. They worried privately that the nuclear case was weak, but expressed sober certitude in public."

mrC

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Good debate
« Reply #65 on: October 03, 2004, 12:48:28 pm »
Fundamental questions for MrC:

So, where are the weapons of mass destruction and related items that UNSCOM said he had in 1998?

So, where are the weapons of mass destruction and related items that UNSCOM said were unaccounted for in 1998?

Thank you. End of story.


Man you are THICK boy. HE.DID.NOT.HAVE.THEM

The only way you can say that is if you can answer the questions, above.

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Good debate
« Reply #66 on: October 03, 2004, 12:50:08 pm »
It's THEIR fault the Bush administration lied

Note that if the Bush administration lied about Iraq WMDs, then so too did Kerry.

Bush said that he doesnt think Kerry misled the people about WMDs.  Is Bush worng?

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Good debate
« Reply #67 on: October 03, 2004, 12:55:37 pm »
TA, if you were president would anyone be alive?

Yes.  But not for long, should they screw with us.

Brave words commando! Too bad Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9-11, nor were they stockpiling WMD. Otherwise you've got a real good argument there.

Quote
The crap with Halliburton and KBR is well documented.  It's been around for a few years.
What "crap"?  If its been "well documented", you should be able to specify a few things.

Three words. No bid contracts.

 

Quote
During the 12 years prior to Bush ordering in the troops, what was the consensus of our Government?  They thought it wasn't a good idea.  

Wow.  THATS a stretch.
Do you know when "regime change" in Iraq because official US policy?   It wasnt 2001...

Regime change through ground warfare? Or some other means. Because current members of the Bush clan were dead set against marching our men and women into what they understood would be a quagmire. Cheney, Bush Senior...

Also don't use the tired "chicken-little" defense that "9-11 changed everything". Saddam had nothing to do with it and he was not a threat. 12 years of sanctions and no-fly zones had worked in containing him. Show me proof that it hadn't? (Current terrorist now flooding into Iraq don't count...duh!)



Quote
That WAS a rush to war.  

12 years is a "rush".  Right.

George Bush rushed to war with Iraq after 9-11. Iraq had nothing to do with Iraq and it had nothing to do with the war on terrorism. It does now that we've opened the country up to various fundamentalist movements. Prior to Bush's War, Iraq was a secular nation.


Quote
And please do tell me:   if they dont have our back, who would?

Good question now that Bush has completely alienated our country from the rest of the world. Again you seem to be comfortable blaming this on the rest of the world, when the Bush is squarely at fault for invading Iraq. It's somehome their fault for not immediately running to our aid? France, Germany, Russia, etc...very well may NEVER come to help us in Iraq. I can say with the utmost certainty that they will NOT assist under Bush (Who wants all the pie). There is a slight chance under Kerry (whose more apt to use reason and negotiate, something you chickenhaws seem to think is a bad trait). To me, it's better than nothing.


Quote
And anyone can put together a video editing it to say whatever they want it to.

That  doesnt make the Kerry video in any way less true or effective.

But is also doesn't make your argument any more valid.


Quote
Your shoot first ask later attitude can't work in todays world.

12 years and 17 reolutions isnt "shooting first".

Sanctions apparently worked. Inspectors were gaining ground. Prove otherwise.


Quote
And when Saddam did give or sell a WMD to the terrorists and they did use them on NYC - you'd blame Bush for doing nothing when he had the chance.

See my response down-thread to this utterly retarded argument.


Quote
You're arguing that because we invaded one country thats a threat, we have to invade them all.  Faulty logic.

Faulty logic? You're basing your entire argument on the premise that Iraq was a threat. They clearly were not.


mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Good debate
« Reply #68 on: October 03, 2004, 01:18:10 pm »
Fundamental questions for MrC:

So, where are the weapons of mass destruction and related items that UNSCOM said he had in 1998?

So, where are the weapons of mass destruction and related items that UNSCOM said were unaccounted for in 1998?

Thank you. End of story.


Man you are THICK boy. HE.DID.NOT.HAVE.THEM

The only way you can say that is if you can answer the questions, above.


You mean THIS UNSCOM, the one that the prior head, Scott Ritter, basically calls a sham???????  Give me a break. Is that the best you've got?

"Ritter maintains UNSCOM lost focus of its international U.N. mandate in favor of unilateral U.S. aims in the spring of 1998.

The change "went from total UNSCOM control over everything but data processing to no UNSCOM control over anything. The United States was controlling every aspect," Ritter told CNN.

...

In a recent interview, Ritter (prior head of UNSCOM) dismissed talk of an intelligence failure, because, in his view, the Bush administration and CIA knew all along that the Iraqis had no WMDs and were "lying to the Congress and the American people."

Ritter dismissed CIA defenders who say the agency's reports bristled with caveats.

"They lie by caveating. You can write an intelligence report in a manner which protects you (from critics later) because you put in the appropriate caveats," Ritter said. "It's a wink and a nod."

Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Good debate
« Reply #69 on: October 03, 2004, 01:47:57 pm »
Haha, I'm quite aware of Halliburton and one of it's subsidiary companies KBR.  Are you?  I've worked with international construction firms for several years (Mostly based in the Far East but doing projects in the US).  Here's information directly from their site: "...Halliburton, an oil services company once run by Vice President Dick Cheney. In 2001, the company won a multibillion-dollar contract to supply all the logistical needs of the U.S. military in Iraq. ... Halliburton delivers soldiers' mail and washes their clothes. It provides them with food, toilets and bunks. It ships fuel for tanks and builds conference rooms for generals. ... Halliburton has come under attack because of its links to Cheney and Pentagon audit findings that it has overcharged the government hundreds of millions of dollars. ... Halliburton Co. took a major step toward completing a $4 billion settlement of its asbestos-liability problem as a company unit filed for federal bankruptcy-law protection. ...
Go to their own site for starters.  This "boogeyman" is real.

"During the 12 years prior to Bush ordering in the troops, what was the consensus of our Government?  They thought it wasn't a good idea.  

Wow.  THATS a stretch."


How is that a stretch?  There's a lot of countries that we'd like to see a regime change.  It's just not a good idea to jump in with guns blazing.  There's more to world politics than force.

"12 years is a "rush".  Right."
You seem to think there was 12 years of planing an invasion.  Hello?  Is this thing on?

"The UK, Australia, and Poland arent our friends?
The other 17 NATO member states arent our friends?
How about the other 20 non- NATO countires currently involved?  Japan?  S. Korea?  The Kiwis?  They arent our friends?
"

Quantify what these countries have put into Iraq in both troops and money.  Compare that to what we put in.  Get the message?  Didn't S. Korea pull all 6 delegates out when they had somebody kidnapped?  That's what I mean by "having our back".  Some "coalition".  If anyone has a current link as to who's putting in what, I'd love to see it.  Here's a link showing casualties and wounded: http://icasualties.org/oif/  Add up the casualties for ALL others and compare it to US forces.  
United States  -  1060 killed
ALL OTHERS    -   138 killed

Notice anything?  If there are 17 other NATO members and 20 non-Nato members, and we are all equally involve as a true coalition... yeah right.  You show 38 countries involved and one country has 88.5% of the mortalities.  This is not and never was a true coalition.

"And anyone can put together a video editing it to say whatever they want it to.
That  doesnt make the Kerry video in any way less true or effective.
"
Haha.  Here's clips from your last post:
"The other 17 NATO member states arent our friends...How about the other 20 non- NATO countires currently involved?...they dont have our back..."
Is that what you meant to say?  Is it true?  Is it effective?  Twisted words man, twisted words.

"And when Saddam did give or sell a WMD to the terrorists and they did use them on NYC - you'd blame Bush for doing nothing when he had the chance."
So you think it's lucky we found all those WMD that Saddam had?  Oh wait... ::)

"You're arguing that because we invaded one country thats a threat, we have to invade them all."
That's not my agruement at all.  My arguement is why send forces into Iraq when other countries are a bigger risk to our security?  You're the one that just said you'd whack anyone who screwed with us.  Who would you whack first, the guy with the possibility of having disassembled parts and an attitude or the guy with the parts assembled and an attitude?

"yes, NOW'S the time to go to war"
Do you hear anyone complaining about going after Osama?  No.  And I've personally been saying for a long time we should stand up to N. Korea.

"Why did Kerry want us to gather this "unilateral support" for Iraq but now wants to act bilaterally with North Korea?"
Unilateral Military Action
Bilateral Talks
Two very different animals.  Kerry also said our talks with N. Korea would be in addition to the current talks, not a replacement for.

"It'll please Britain to know you think so little of their country, and the deaths of their people"
Who ever said that? ???

"...they only believe we should never go to war, EVER"
Not my view at all.  Sometimes war is unavoidable.  Sometimes it is.  And sometimes, you just bite off more than you can chew.

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Good debate
« Reply #70 on: October 03, 2004, 02:06:15 pm »
 Too bad Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9-11, nor were they stockpiling WMD. Otherwise you've got a real good argument there.

Where did the WMDs and related items, known to be there in 1998, go?


Three words. No bid contracts.

And why did Haliburton get a NBC?

Whart does Haliburton do?
 



Good question now that Bush has completely alienated our country from the rest of the world.

38 countries ae in Iraq.  18 of 26 NATO members.
"The resto of the world"?  Who among the rest of the world do we need to have help us so that we arent going it alone?  Who among the rest of thr world will 'have our back' if the current coalition does not?




But is also doesn't make your argument any more valid.

Sure it does.   It show he said what he said, in context.

Unless you can sghow its all out of context, is support the argument quite well.


Sanctions apparently worked. Inspectors were gaining ground. Prove otherwise.

Where are the WMDs and materials known to be there in 1998?

And after hand Blix declares that Iraq had not made the fudamental decision to disarm - why do the inspectors need to be there any longer?



Faulty logic? You're basing your entire argument on the premise that Iraq was a threat. They clearly were not.

John Kerry thinks they were.


TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Good debate
« Reply #71 on: October 03, 2004, 02:08:09 pm »
You mean THIS UNSCOM, the one that the prior head, Scott Ritter, basically calls a sham???????  Give me a break. Is that the best you've got?

You arent answering the question.

Where are the weapons and related porgrams that UNSCOM knew to be there in December 1998?





Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Good debate
« Reply #72 on: October 03, 2004, 02:48:36 pm »
"And why did Haliburton get a NBC?

Whart does Haliburton do?"

That's the million dolla question.  The answer?  They take a cut off the top and farm the work out to non-qualified companies.  Huh?  What?
Look to this government document:
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_contract_july_21_desc_report.pdf

"Rather than perform the work itself, Halliburton selected an obscure Kuwaiti subcontractor, Altanmia Commercial Marketing Company, to import gasoline from Kuwait. Altanmia had no previous fuel procurement or transportation experience.4 According to Halliburton, Halliburton knew about Altanmia because Halliburton had previously leased real estate from an affiliated company within the same family-owned conglomerate

Halliburton awarded the subcontract to Altanmia in a single day after obtaining quotes from just two other bidders.6 On May 4, the same day Task Order 5 was
issued, the Army Corps requested that Kuwait

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Good debate
« Reply #73 on: October 03, 2004, 02:51:44 pm »
You mean THIS UNSCOM, the one that the prior head, Scott Ritter, basically calls a sham???????  Give me a break. Is that the best you've got?

You arent answering the question.

Where are the weapons and related porgrams that UNSCOM knew to be there in December 1998?


Actually, you are not listening. I'm saying, given what the previous head of UNSCOM has been saying, those weapons that have been "unaccounted" for have probably either been completely destroyed without observation, detriorated beyond use, or  we're probably never there in the first place in the quantities previously suspected. It's not like the Bush admin has been entirely up front and honest about this situation, and it's not like they (and their friends) haven't been known to exaggerate numbers and cook the books.

But don't ask me, just ask David Kay, the former lead inspector for the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) Concealment and Investigations team in Iraq, who confessed in January to the Senate: It "turns out that we were all wrong probably ... and that is most disturbing."  and just recently stated "There simply is no evidence of a factual nature that sustains the allegation by the Bush administration or British government that Iraq today possesses weapons of mass destruction."

Or Jay Davis, a veteran weapons inspector, physicist and former head of the U.S. Defense Threat Reduction Agency, who states, "The chemicals in the weapons tend to break down over time; only wealthy, technically advanced nations such as the United States, the former Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and World War II-era Japan ever developed chemical weapons that could withstand prolonged storage. So Iraqi chemical weapons might have deteriorated into uselessness by 2003, he now says."

So there, I answered your question. Am I to believe you are more informed than them? Keep spinning away, the majority of us are going to hold Bush accountable. You can lock yourself in a bunker and wait for the next attack if you wish.

Now you answer my question, when are you going to wake up?
« Last Edit: October 03, 2004, 02:55:28 pm by mr.Curmudgeon »

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Good debate
« Reply #74 on: October 03, 2004, 03:21:16 pm »
The right is so desperate to spin this debate away, here's the latest sad, sad, sad, attempt:

MYSTERY: DID KERRY HAVE CHEAT SHEET?

Unless that "cheat sheet" had magic dust on it which forced 'W' to stare blankly into the camera for the majority of the debate, it doesn't explain why Bushies performance was so shamefully inadequate.

Plus, new rumor going around is that Bush may pull out of second debate!!!!
What will Bush supporters think of their brave Dear Leader if he backs away from a chance to show Kerry (that latte drinking frenchie) what's what?

This whole period since the debate has been absolutely electrifying for Kerry supporters, if this is true you can expect mass celebration, as they dance on the ruins of the Bush presidency.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2004, 03:43:08 pm by mr.Curmudgeon »

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Good debate
« Reply #75 on: October 03, 2004, 08:31:04 pm »
That's the million dolla question.  The answer?  They take a cut off the top and farm the work out to non-qualified companies.  Huh?  What?

Thats all you got?   Wow.  I'm impressed.

Haliburton is an oil services company.   Largest in the world.
No other oil services company from any of the nations in the coalition can do what they do at the scale they do it.  And so, they got the contract.

Your argument against them is that they subcontracted out some of the services?  Thats IT?

AMAZING.   Companies subcontract stuff out all the time - and you think that because Haliburton did it, they're somehow the root of all evil?


« Last Edit: October 03, 2004, 08:38:28 pm by TA Pilot »

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Good debate
« Reply #76 on: October 03, 2004, 08:37:32 pm »
Actually, you are not listening. I'm saying, given what the previous head of UNSCOM has been saying, those weapons that have been "unaccounted" for have probably either been completely destroyed without observation, detriorated beyond use, or  we're probably never there in the first place

Yeah?
What about the weapons they listed as STILL THERE in 1998?

Not the ones they could not account for, but the ones they were known to still have?



and it's not like they (and their friends) haven't been known to exaggerate numbers and cook the books.

So...  UNSCOM lied?



 So Iraqi chemical weapons might have deteriorated into uselessness by 2003he now says.

WHICH chemical weapons?
Mustard gas?  VX precursors?  Sarin?
Be specific about which weapons he's describing - because if you can't, your quote is meaningless.


So there, I answered your question.

No.  You didnt.
You did not address the issue as to the weapons that were known to still exist.

Whats happened to them?



DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #77 on: October 03, 2004, 09:28:04 pm »
Where to start...there's so much misinformation from MrC now that he's awake....and I CERTAINLY don't want to bore shmokes.  

One thing I'm wondering.  MrC, is it a requirement to have ADD in order to keep up with your constantly changing argument towards something you feel you can defend?  I think you'd do well on the streets of N.Y. running your own shell game.  Think about it...giving all your winnings to the Kerry campaign, donating the rest to various organizations.

I think I'll do a TA Pilot and answer multiple questions in multiple posts.  Dontcha just love a dogged investigation and expose of your (mis)information?!  ;D

For my first...what'd you call it, "Link-something"?  I have no problems with linking to things that I view as necessary, rather than your tactic of throwing baseless accusations to see what sticks...and lots of it, in case someone forgets to reply to your B.S.  Do you get paid to be Kerry's misinformation proxy?  It seems as if your shining jewel of "the truth", Scott Ritter, has either taken a page from Kerry, or has taught Kerry all he knows.  Perhaps you'll have further reasoning, "chickenhawk" fashion regarding this story about him.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

And for my second link, I'll post this and ask - were you such a tenacious defender of Mr Ritter when he was blaming the Clinton administration, reported here?  I suppose not, because at that time, it was your job to be cover for those things.  Perhaps you would come off as more credible if the "source" you use to "refute" the fact that countless (there's that word again!) numbers of leaders, intelligence agencies, and, yes, even U.N. inspectors believed Sadaam to possess WMD's, of which, in resolution after resolution (you know, the ""informed diplomacy" the U.N. used in dealing with him?) weren't one who agreed himself.  

He just decided to change his opinion at the drop of a hat...well, actually, the drop of 400,000 hats ::)


Oh, and BTW, since you seem to now feel comfortable joining our debates, is it possible that an enlightened liberal such as yourself, the peacenik that you profess to be...is it just possible for you to engage in thoughtful debate, and skip the name-calling that has come to be your calling card when the conversation is not going your way?  Clearly it can be done, as shmokes OFTEN exhibits such behavior, while you haven't seemed capable of going less than a few posts without such things?  Perhaps it's just everyone else who can discuss things civilly, and you haven't been taught such things.  Give it a whirl.  Others agreeing with you seem to enjoy it, have a Coke and a smile...or start with a Pepsi and a grimace, in your case.  
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Good debate
« Reply #78 on: October 03, 2004, 09:43:46 pm »
"No other oil services company from any of the nations in the coalition can do what they do at the scale they do it.  Your argument against them is that they subcontracted out some of the services?"

TA, try reading the link and my post.  The point being they didn't do any the work under that contract.  They subbed out that full contract to a company that had ZERO experience in doing that type of work.  And you say they are the only company that could handle that?  I could have done that.  I guess you've never heard of companies called bechtel or Parsons?  There are others.

As I said before, I'm quite aware of how construction works.  I get paid to know how it works.  We don't need to argue that point.

And no Halliburton is NOT the largest oil services company in the world, they are big, but not the biggest.  And they do more than just oil services.

You demand everyone to provide links and answer your questions in detail but then don't read the links/proof.  What's up with that?

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Good debate
« Reply #79 on: October 03, 2004, 09:52:19 pm »
Drew,

Are you F*cking kidding me? You link to an article by REED IRVINE???
Why don't I just give you George Soros number and have him clear up my argument for you...I'm sure you'll listen to him.

"In the 1970s, Irvine endeared himself to the New Right by alleging that the corporate media was a propaganda tool for the Soviet KGB and Fidel Castro. With the end of the Cold War, AIM now assails environmentalists as the "infiltrators" of the media establishment."

I'm sure it sounds sane for you, but personally, I'm not going to bother. Reed is also a columnist for Newsmax...

If this is what you'd put forth as unbiased info, there's no hope for this thread.

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Good debate
« Reply #80 on: October 03, 2004, 09:55:11 pm »
BREAKING NEWS:
In response to my above posting regarding Kerry's mystery object at the debates, it has now been discovered to be the following:

(Via Fark)

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #81 on: October 03, 2004, 11:08:29 pm »
Drew,

Are you F*cking kidding me? You link to an article by REED IRVINE???
Why don't I just give you George Soros number and have him clear up my argument for you...I'm sure you'll listen to him.
Hmm.  The Drudge report is decried as partisan and often wrong....yet when they agree with you, they are put forth as expert testimony.  I put forth information from Factcheck.org, and you dismiss it as something that skews stories both ways....you post stories from The N.Y. Times, CNN, and countless other left-leaning outlets, but I'm "not F*cking for real" ???  ::)

Oh, BTW, the language....it's getting tiresome.  You clamored on endlessly about us ceasing the political talk because it would divide members of a friendly community, yet you're the one who can't seem to eliminate the language intended to divide from your posts.  It's hard to understand what you really mean when you're talking from both sides of your mouth ::)  

Pray tell, where should the great unwashed go to get their information?  I ask, because you seem to want to dismiss any information that disagrees with you.  Are you publishing a newspaper you need to prop up?  You cry about my politically biased information, and yet, I'm supposed to remain quiet and choke down your garbage that's equally biased.  I used to think you seriously COULDN'T want to censor information, but your continual posts that anything you view to be "out there" can't possibly have a shred of truth to it, and should be ignored.  I still believe you don't wish to censor information, but only because once in a while, they may say something you want to use to say "SEE?  SEE?  I TOLD YOU SO, I TOLD YOU SO!"  You just wish they'd run their stories by you, as you think you're so much better qualified to tell us all what is and isn't "fact".

Here's some more "Link-fests" you are more qualified to refute, based on the fact that "they're not you" ::)

Slate's article.  Check it out

How about Ritter's own words?  Check THIS out

I know, there's probably "gaping flaws" with these two links as well.  I wonder how many people find it funny that while I can keep coming up with links, all you can do is ask "are you F*cking kidding me?" and expect me to find some NY Times or SanFran Chronicle article to say a democratic position is wrong.  

Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

shmokes

  • Just think of all the suffering in this world that could have been avoided had I just been a little better informed. :)
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10471
  • Last login:September 24, 2016, 06:50:42 pm
  • Don't tread on me.
    • Jake Moses
Re:Good debate
« Reply #82 on: October 03, 2004, 11:18:14 pm »
Mr. C, I really think you should curb your enthusiasm just a bit.  Two possible consequences of your continued....passion, I think, are:

1- The thread will get closed, which always irritates the hell out of me cos I often miss days at a time lately due to my work and school load being so heavy.

or

2- People, even those who lean left, will come to think of you as a liberal TaPilot and write you off as a nut to be ignored.

I suppose that you would not want to cause the premature death of a thread (especially one about a debate that your guy clearly won) and I can only imagine the horror that must go through your head at the mere thought of people lumping you into any category that also included TaPilot.

p.s.  Thanks for your consideration of me when writing your posts, Drew.  Trust me, I'm doing you a favor  ;)
Check out my website for in-depth reviews of children's books, games, and educational apps for the iPad:

Best Kid iPad Apps

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #83 on: October 04, 2004, 12:00:52 am »
Shmokes, just trying to do my part...I know the nights in Utah can't be the hustle-bustle in other more cosmopolitan areas, and didn't want to put you to sleep early ;) although if you have class in the morning, I might HELP! ;D

Fundamental question for Drew and TA:

So, where are the weapons of mass destruction?

Thank you. End of story.
I'm tired of the constant clamoring that we went into Iraq because they had WMD's.  MrC, your side has succeeded in getting the American public to forget what led up to us declaring war, and WHY.  It wasn't to "go git all them thar WMD's".  Your "end of story" ignores the beginning of the story.  why did we take the actions we did?  Read this....if you don't want to read it all, I'll probably be replying after MrC selectively picks what he views as his reasons.  I'll be there to put it back into context again ::)  

MrC, the information regarding Sadaam having them has been rehashed numerous times.  For some reason, you don't want to face those facts.  I can't produce WMD's, no we haven't found them, and the reasons Bush gave regarding military action have long ago been overlooked....it's like the "Tastes Great/Less Filling".  Constant attention to an issue gets people to think "it MUST be what we have to look at, otherwise they wouldn't keep talking about it"....I can't sit here and put toothpicks in your eyes to open them.  It's just too much to ask.  You've GOT to do some of the work yourself.  Perhaps if hatred didn't fill the rest of your mind, you'd have enough free space to insert some fact in there.

Quote
Quote
And when Saddam did give or sell a WMD to the terrorists and they did use them on NYC - you'd blame Bush for doing nothing when he had the chance.

Man you are THICK boy. HE.DID.NOT.HAVE.THEM.
The verdict is still out on that to ME, but I'm guessing to you Syria is just a friendly nation full of gumdrops and rainbows.  That's what we get for being "thick"...oh, and the charge he levies is still valid.  Does "what did they know and when did they know it" ring a bell?  

As for US being thick, are you giving Kerry a pass?  We didn't have access to the information that he did, but he opted to believe the intel and voted accordingly.  Does that make Kerry MORE thick?  Don't let the fact that you're working to re-elect him cloud your response ::)
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #84 on: October 04, 2004, 12:39:39 am »
DID I SAY COUNTLESS?, yes, countless OTHER COUNTRIES WHO BELIEVED AND STATED THAT SADAAM HAD WMD'S

How cute. Somehow everyone else is at fault for believing FALSE INFORMATION disseminated by the United States of America.
I included the part you quote from me.  Why?  The words "everyone else is at fault" were never uttered by me, and your bald-faced lies only serve to discredit you further.  The U.S. and other countries' intelligence agencies all agreed at that time that Sadaam had WMD's.  I've stated it againg, because I don't think you read it the first time.  Remember that "international coalition" Kerry espoused?  Those folks...we should ask for their help, but not believe their intelligence.  What help should we ask for?  Water bottles?  Band-Aids?  Rubber bands?  Yeah, military intelligence worldwide that agrees with us...we should ignore it, no matter if it's the millionth country telling us their stuff says the same thing.

Quote
t's their fault they had faith in the greatest super power on the planet. It's their fault they'd be so foolish as to trust our president.
And somehow, with Kerry clearly stating that we are going it alone in Iraq, they should trust YOUR candidate, when anyone with eyes can see that we AREN'T GOING IT ALONE.  

Quote
We'll as they say in Texas (and probably Tennessee), fool me once........you can't get fooled again!
I know...the different dialects in the U.S.  Screwy, hey?  You should hear 'em in MA...they pronounce it "I actually DID get fooled again, before I wasn't fooled"

Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #85 on: October 04, 2004, 01:01:37 am »

Bush has already proven he feels above such petty things. He wanted the war, not the information saying it was a terribly disasterous idea. He failed. He's fired.

Theres those DNC talkin gpoints again.


Talking Points? It happens to be the truth.

"NY Times Says Cheney and Rice Knowingly Misled Us About Iraq's Nuclear Capability" (NYTIMES - October 3, 2004
)

I'll let you answer yourself

If this is what you'd put forth as unbiased info, there's no hope for this thread.

Hey, how is the Times doing?  Did they ever deal with that reporter...what was his name....can I just call him Mr. Pantsonfire, or is that too biased?  ::)  I'm almost positive that it couldn't happen again ::)
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Good debate
« Reply #86 on: October 04, 2004, 01:01:48 am »
I suppose that you would not want to cause the premature death of a thread (especially one about a debate that your guy clearly won) and I can only imagine the horror that must go through your head at the mere thought of people lumping you into any category that also included TaPilot.

Now why would I want to cause the premature death of a political thread on an arcade forum?  ::)

As for being lumped in with TAPilot, even if you got me an electric car and a greenpeace membership it'd be far from enough to counter his existence.

I've had my fun, as I mentioned earlier, I'm going to be away from the political forums online in exchange for political forums in the real world. You guys/gals of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders will be rid of me. No tears! I'm joining the ranks of the Kerry campaign and we've got a lot of work ahead. (To preempt Drew, yes, I am going to stifle free speech, disenfranchise voters and stuff ballot boxes, maybe even chow down on a few babies while I'm at it!)

mrC

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #87 on: October 04, 2004, 01:06:24 am »
(To preempt Drew, yes, I am going to stifle free speech, disenfranchise voters and stuff ballot boxes, maybe even chow down on a few babies while I'm at it!)

mrC
Can you tell us where you'll be enacting your "campaign drives" so we can collect news clippings and make you a nice scrapbook for when you come back?  Just check the NY Times?  

Whatever you do, if some guy in a blue "uniform" wants to fit you with some shiny new silver "bracelets", make sure you make enough of a scene in thanking him for it that it makes the evening news.  I wanna tell my wife "I know that guy!"  ;D
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #88 on: October 04, 2004, 01:16:17 am »
I can't do this anymore tonight.  I don't know how TA can sit there and read misinformation after misinformation after misinformation by you and continue to respond, when your pat answer is "That source can't possibly be credible.  Why?  How dare you question me!  Why?  Because I said so"   "Bush is a lying snake in the grass chickenhawk snotface doody headed moron"   "I can't believe you said that, but a few posts previous, I used your same idea to bolster MY argument"  

Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Good debate
« Reply #89 on: October 04, 2004, 06:35:09 pm »
What's up with that?

One wonders the same thing about the obsession with Haliburton - perhap the phallic nature of an drilling derrick?

The only reason anyone cares about them at all is because Cheney used to run the company.  Naturally, that means that what Cheney does in office can only be judged by its relationship to the company her used to run.

I mean...  Haliburton got a no-bid contracts in Serbia under Clinton - where were the screams?

Halliburton Received No-Bid Contracts During Clinton Administration For Work In Bosnia And Kosovo.
 

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Good debate
« Reply #90 on: October 04, 2004, 06:42:00 pm »
I don't know how TA can sit there and read misinformation after misinformation after misinformation by you and continue to respond

My motivation is my own self-enetrtainment.
Why do you think I posted the pics off the boys w/ my rifles and have that "assault weapon" sig?  I like driving liberals nuts.

See, thsese guys wouldnt know a sound argument it if stuck them in the rectal cavity with a hot poker (though it might singe their nose hairs...)- so there isnt any real sense in arguing with them like you would normal people.

Their support for Kerry comes from one thing, and one thing alone - their hatred for Bush.

Theor hatred for Bush comes from one things and one thing alone - (R)

People like that simply cannot be reasoned with - so its stupid to try.  Just remember that when reading their posts and formulating your responses.


DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #91 on: October 04, 2004, 08:37:43 pm »
People like that simply cannot be reasoned with - so its stupid to try.  Just remember that when reading their posts and formulating your responses.
MrC can't be reasoned with, I see, but I can't sit by while he continues to stick and move like a boxer - stick: Bush lied, information disagreeing with my point is ridiculous, he'd cheat on his blood tests if he could   move:  now that I've proved (to myself) that you lied, what about this ridiculous point that says more of the same?  What?  answer your questions honestly?  I can't be bothered  ::)

Since we're on the topic of arguing with them....anybody else hear that there are voting districts where, when the quantity of people over 18 (voting age, that is) is counted, there just happens to be hundreds (a few number thousands) more voters registered above and beyond that number!  But with the stories surfacing similar to mine in Wisconsin, we're supposed to believe that the registration programs submitting ballots that don't even have I.D. aren't working to "help" the coming election....you know, help, as in Chicago style?

Did you hear the new fraudulent voter registration rally cheer?  Hey Hey how many dead have you registered today?
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

shmokes

  • Just think of all the suffering in this world that could have been avoided had I just been a little better informed. :)
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10471
  • Last login:September 24, 2016, 06:50:42 pm
  • Don't tread on me.
    • Jake Moses
Re:Good debate
« Reply #92 on: October 04, 2004, 08:41:49 pm »
TA,  my hatred for Bush is a perfectly valid reason to vote for Kerry.  I'm liberal.  Kerry is not as liberal as I'd like him to be, but his policies clearly would represent my views better than Bush's.  It is beyond obvious that you will never vote for a democrat?  Is that because you're a moronic partisan political hack?  Maybe.  But more likely you are aware that the chances that a democrat is going to come along who lines up ideologically with your are pretty remote.  Even acknowledging the possibility that I would consider voting for some moderate republican some day, Bush is clearly not that person.  He's extremely conservative.

Also don't forget that the next president will likely nominate at least one, and up to four Supreme Court jusices.  If Bush is able to nominate just one, to replace Sandra Day O'Conner, Roe v. Wade will be overturned.  Surely you can understand how important that is (for people on both sides of the issue).  Whoever wins, though, will probably determine which party controls the Judicial branch of government for the foreseeable future.  Supreme Court justices serve for life.  It's rightly important to a democrat that justice slots be filled by democrat presidents.  When a president faces the possibility of nominating not one, but FOUR Supreme Court justices, the stakes are pretty high.

It's called thinking strategically.  Would Kerry be my first choice?  No.  Does that mean I should automatically vote for Bush?  Of course not, because he's just plain further from my views than Kerry is.  Please understand that we are given only two viable choices in a Presidential Election.  You choose the best of the two.  You don't just evaluate one of them and, if he doesn't meet your idea of the perfect candidate automatically vote for the other guy.  

You said yourself that we're voting for Kerry simply because we HATE Bush.  Well, if we HATE (as you put it) one candidate.  And we don't hate the other one, doesn't it kinda make sense that we would vote for the other one, even if we don't absolutely love him?  Common, put your thinking cap on here.

Your being blinded by your dogma.  You point to some irrational all-encompassing hatred liberals have for the President and have apparently forgotton President Clinton.  Do you remember Gingrich and Starr?  You impeached him.  Have you never listened to Limbaugh, Hannity or Coulter?

It's politics.  Both sides play the same game.  I think your side plays it far dirtier than mine.  You probably disagree.  Either way, you seem to live in a fantastically naive little world.
Check out my website for in-depth reviews of children's books, games, and educational apps for the iPad:

Best Kid iPad Apps

Mameotron

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re:Good debate
« Reply #93 on: October 05, 2004, 06:43:03 am »

Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Good debate
« Reply #94 on: October 06, 2004, 01:19:41 pm »
Put another log on the fire...
The government's most definitive account of Iraq's arms programs, to be released today, will show that Saddam Hussein posed a diminishing threat at the time the United States invaded and did not possess, or have concrete plans to develop, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, U.S. officials said yesterday.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6188101/
Cook me up some bacon and some beans...

shmokes

  • Just think of all the suffering in this world that could have been avoided had I just been a little better informed. :)
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10471
  • Last login:September 24, 2016, 06:50:42 pm
  • Don't tread on me.
    • Jake Moses
Re:Good debate
« Reply #95 on: October 06, 2004, 01:27:05 pm »
Well, that's 2 for 2 for the democrats.  I'm more and more hopeful by the day.  Cheney was the Bush team's best chance for putting one of the debate wins on their side.  And if Bush can't win on the foreign policy debate, it's really doubtful that he can be successful when the focus shifts to domestic policy and the economy.
Check out my website for in-depth reviews of children's books, games, and educational apps for the iPad:

Best Kid iPad Apps

fredster

  • Grand Prophet of Arcadeology
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2311
  • Last login:February 16, 2019, 04:28:53 pm
  • It's all good!
Re:Good debate
« Reply #96 on: October 06, 2004, 02:34:49 pm »
2 for 2?

You really believe that Edwards can tie Chaney's shoes ?

Man, we didn't watch the same debate.  Chaney outclassed and out manuevered Edwards all the way around.

Chaney laid out the case for Iraq, countered on every point that Edwards had.

Sorry, 1 for 1.

Friday, it will be 1 for 2 , R's winning.

King of the Flying Monkeys from the Dark Side

fredster

  • Grand Prophet of Arcadeology
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2311
  • Last login:February 16, 2019, 04:28:53 pm
  • It's all good!
Re:Good debate
« Reply #97 on: October 06, 2004, 02:45:32 pm »
Crazy Cooter - Your article says some good stuff.

"Hussein had the intention of making WMD.. Statements Hussein made to debriefers after his capture that bolster administration assertions, including his statement that his past possession of weapons of mass destruction "was one of the reasons he had survived so long."

And also states : "The report includes... evidence of corruption and abuse in the U.N.-monitored oil-for-food program, and dual-use equipment -- which could be used for either peaceful or military programs -- that U.N. inspectors may not have been aware of."

So the UN was on the take, Saddam was comming out of the box with the intentions of creating more WMD aided by our "allies" and friends at the UN who were on the take for billions.

Makes the case for Bush all the way. No question.


King of the Flying Monkeys from the Dark Side

Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Good debate
« Reply #98 on: October 06, 2004, 03:28:10 pm »
 ??? Are we reading the same article?  I don't think the UN was "on the take".

You've removed some very important details with your "...".

"The official said Duelfer will tell Congress in the report and in testimony today that Hussein intended to reconstitute weapons of mass destruction programs if he were freed of the U.N. sanctions that prevented him from getting needed materials"

"...the state of Hussein's weapons-development programs and knowledge base was less advanced in 2003, when the war began, than it was in 1998, when international inspectors left Iraq."

"...his [saddam] statement that his past possession of weapons of mass destruction "was one of the reasons he had survived so long."

"dual-use equipment" - I think the article was refering to Iraq using materials inappropriately.  ie:  They get fertilizer for the neighborhoods and build bombs instead.  (That didn't happen AFAIK, but that's the only example I could think of.)

My take on the situation is till the same.
1- There were/are more important threats than Iraq.
2- Saddam wasn't "on the verge" of any attack.
3- Saddam is full of hot air.  I think he was refering to people being afraid of him since he said he had WMD, so they left him alone.

Is the world better without him in power?  Time will tell.  Should we have focused our efforts on N. Korea?  Time will tell.  Can you trust the French?  heheh.

Does this support Bush?  I don't think so.  Bush took the stance that Saddam was standing on the White House lawn with a grenade and we had to get him before he got us.  That was simply not the case.  Sure Saddam wished he was, but there are other countries that we should have been looking at.  IMO, Bush was staring at a distant tree and not looking at the forest all around him.

saint

  • turned to the Dark Side
  • Supreme Chancellor
  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6068
  • Last login:March 27, 2020, 04:12:21 pm
  • I only work in cyberspace...
    • Build Your Own Arcade Controls
Re:Good debate
« Reply #99 on: October 06, 2004, 04:14:04 pm »
Actually, it appears the debate was essentially a draw, with a slight edge to Edwards, based on average poll results.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/06/debate.main/index.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134593,00.html
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_10246.shtml
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/politics/3787345/detail.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3717918.stm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#survey

The Republicans think Cheney  won, the Democrats think Edwards won. Probably the only interesting result is that (based on CBS' poll I think, insert-your-own-joke-about-CBS-credibility-here) undecided voters think Edwards won. As of this moment, the MS-NBC poll has Edwards leading 59% to 41%. It's an active poll, so the %'s will likely have changed by the time anyone checks the link...

--- saint

2 for 2?

You really believe that Edwards can tie Chaney's shoes ?

Man, we didn't watch the same debate.  Chaney outclassed and out manuevered Edwards all the way around.

Chaney laid out the case for Iraq, countered on every point that Edwards had.

Sorry, 1 for 1.

Friday, it will be 1 for 2 , R's winning.


--- John St.Clair
     Build Your Own Arcade Controls FAQ
     http://www.arcadecontrols.com/
     Project Arcade 2!
     http://www.projectarcade2.com/
     saint@arcadecontrols.com

GGKoul

  • Cheesecake Apprentice
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4723
  • Last login:July 23, 2019, 05:47:30 pm
  • I was once a big man!! -4700 posts later...
Re:Good debate
« Reply #100 on: October 06, 2004, 04:46:38 pm »
From todays headlines.

UN Inspector:  Iraq had no WMD before invasion

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6190720/


GGKoul

  • Cheesecake Apprentice
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4723
  • Last login:July 23, 2019, 05:47:30 pm
  • I was once a big man!! -4700 posts later...
Re:Good debate
« Reply #101 on: October 06, 2004, 04:51:33 pm »
Fact Checking the Debate... Interesting read...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6188565/

shmokes

  • Just think of all the suffering in this world that could have been avoided had I just been a little better informed. :)
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10471
  • Last login:September 24, 2016, 06:50:42 pm
  • Don't tread on me.
    • Jake Moses
Re:Good debate
« Reply #102 on: October 06, 2004, 06:18:27 pm »
While it certainly was not the shut-out that we saw in the first presidential debate, as Saint pointed out, the scales seem to tip in Edward's favor.  Even a tie, however, is considered a win for the non-incumbent based on historical effects of debates.  Incumbents are expected to win.  A tie, therefore, would technically be a win for Edwards (and, once again, this debate was not a tie; Edwards is being called the winner by a small to medium margin).  The only meaningful measure of who won the debate is who the public perceives as winning.  It doesn't matter who is supposedly more credible, in control of the facts, charismatic, witty, consistent, nervous, or likeable if the public thinks the other guy won.  Maybe by some intellectual standard someone might argue that the win was undeserved, as the democrats will argue about the 2000 Bush/Gore debates, but that's just a waste of breath.  Perception is reality.  

Granted, historical patterns do not always hold true, but it is a very consistent pattern.  

Fredster, to you I would point out that your opinion is irrelevant as to whether Edwards won the debate.  Mine is as well.  Neither candidate had any chance whatever of changing our minds.  That's why polling is important.  

And is Cheney really so rich that he hires out to have his shoes tied -- not only that but the qualifications for the job are so high that even a United States senator is not up to the task?   :P
« Last Edit: October 06, 2004, 06:26:29 pm by shmokes »
Check out my website for in-depth reviews of children's books, games, and educational apps for the iPad:

Best Kid iPad Apps

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #103 on: October 06, 2004, 06:44:55 pm »
Fredster, to you I would point out that your opinion is irrelevant as to whether Edwards won the debate.  Mine is as well.  Neither candidate had any chance whatever of changing our minds.  That's why polling is important.
well the debate last night changed my mind.  I want Cheney to run in '08.  Does that count ;)  And I thought you were voting for Marilyn Chambers....does this mean you're voting for Kerry Edwards (speaking of pR0n names :D )?  
 
Quote
And is Cheney really so rich that he hires out to have his shoes tied -- not only that but the qualifications for the job are so high that even a United States senator is not up to the task?   :P
Yes, he is that rich, and kind of (only a DEMOCRATIC U.S. Senator isn't up to the task)  :P  It's GREAT being a rich evil conservative!  ;D 8)
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Good debate
« Reply #104 on: October 06, 2004, 07:53:43 pm »
"The official said Duelfer will tell Congress in the report and in testimony today that Hussein intended to reconstitute weapons of mass destruction programs if he were freed of the U.N. sanctions that prevented him from getting needed materials"

What do you suppose would have happened, had the inspectors gone in and found nothing?

France and Russia would have fallen over themselves, proposing resolutions to lift sanctions - after all, Iraq is "clean".  Right?

And THEN...   he reconstitutes his weapons.



"...the state of Hussein's weapons-development programs and knowledge base was less advanced in 2003, when the war began, than it was in 1998, when international inspectors left Iraq."

Where are the weapons he was known to have in 1998?



Is the world better without him in power?  Time will tell.  

This is like asking if it the world is better off w/o Stalin or Hitler - only certain kinds of people would entertain the possibility of anything but a resounding YES!!



Bush took the stance that Saddam was standing on the White House lawn with a grenade and we had to get him before he got us.

Absolutely false.  Once Saddam gets the grenade, its too late.  Bush wanted to be sure he never got it.

And he did that in the only way it could be done.

Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Good debate
« Reply #105 on: October 06, 2004, 09:59:10 pm »
Holy crap... TA & I are almost going to agree on something... :o

"Once Saddam gets the grenade, its too late.  Bush wanted to be sure he never got it."

If another country holds the hypothetical grenade and is about to throw it, I say we smack them.  No arguement there.  BUT, if we're going to get all pre-emptive all the worlds ass, there's going to be a LOT of smackin' going on.

SO... I'll ask again, why Iraq?  North Korea has that grenade.  A few of them.  They openly told us that before we went into Iraq.  And what about Iran?  Out of all the countries we have issues with, why go into Iraq that is a "lesser evil"?  THAT is one of my biggest issues with the current administration.  If I was hosting a debate, that's the question I'd ask.

Somebody double check my dates but:
Dec. 10th, 2002 N. Korea said they were going to start making nukes.
We went into Iraq on March 19th, 2003.
I just don't get it.  If you support going into Iraq, shouldn't you be demanding we go into N. Korea (and Iran for that matter, but I know less about their nuke program)?  And I don't want to hear about humanitarian issues because there are all kinds of other countries we could include in that debate.

shmokes

  • Just think of all the suffering in this world that could have been avoided had I just been a little better informed. :)
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10471
  • Last login:September 24, 2016, 06:50:42 pm
  • Don't tread on me.
    • Jake Moses
Re:Good debate
« Reply #106 on: October 07, 2004, 02:51:02 am »
Holy crap... TA & I are almost going to agree on something... :o

"Once Saddam gets the grenade, its too late.  Bush wanted to be sure he never got it."

If another country holds the hypothetical grenade and is about to throw it, I say we smack them.  No arguement there.  BUT, if we're going to get all pre-emptive all the worlds ass, there's going to be a LOT of smackin' going on.

SO... I'll ask again, why Iraq?  North Korea has that grenade.  A few of them.  They openly told us that before we went into Iraq.  And what about Iran?  Out of all the countries we have issues with, why go into Iraq that is a "lesser evil"?  THAT is one of my biggest issues with the current administration.  If I was hosting a debate, that's the question I'd ask.

Somebody double check my dates but:
Dec. 10th, 2002 N. Korea said they were going to start making nukes.
We went into Iraq on March 19th, 2003.
I just don't get it.  If you support going into Iraq, shouldn't you be demanding we go into N. Korea (and Iran for that matter, but I know less about their nuke program)?  And I don't want to hear about humanitarian issues because there are all kinds of other countries we could include in that debate.


N. Korea has no oil.  N. Korea does not have a statue of it's leader with Bush's head at his feat, LOL.
Check out my website for in-depth reviews of children's books, games, and educational apps for the iPad:

Best Kid iPad Apps

Mameotron

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re:Good debate
« Reply #107 on: October 07, 2004, 05:03:09 am »


N. Korea has no oil.  N. Korea does not have a statue of it's leader with Bush's head at his feat, LOL.

Apparently everyone has decided to forget why we went after Saddam in the first place (Desert Storm / Desert Shield).

Saddam Hussein invaded and captured Kuwait.

I've heard everyone crying about how harmless Saddam was and we have no reason to invade since there were no WMDs, blah blah blah...

What's to stop him from buying more conventional weapons, SCUD missiles (and Bio warheads), and then attacking Kuwait again?  Or maybe some other neighbor of his who has oil fields he wants?


Who has N. Korea invaded lately?

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Good debate
« Reply #108 on: October 07, 2004, 08:06:32 am »
SO... I'll ask again, why Iraq?

Gotta start somewhere.  Taking care of Iraq eliminates the Iraqi threat and it sets us up for an effective run against Iran, if necessary.

And its not yet clear that direct military action will be necessary against NK and Iran; this was not the case with Iraq.



If you support going into Iraq, shouldn't you be demanding we go into N. Korea (and Iran for that matter, but I know less about their nuke program)?

Only if you beleive that direct military action is the only way to deal with the situation.   That we invaded Iraq to deal with the Iraqi threat in no way necessitates that we invade Country X to deal with their threat.



TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Good debate
« Reply #109 on: October 07, 2004, 08:08:45 am »
N. Korea has no oil.  

And where is all that free Iraqi oil?



fredster

  • Grand Prophet of Arcadeology
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2311
  • Last login:February 16, 2019, 04:28:53 pm
  • It's all good!
Re:Good debate
« Reply #110 on: October 07, 2004, 10:39:47 am »
The "..." were glossing over the portions I had.  Clearly, Iraq now or later would have presented a big problem.  If Kerry or Edwards had bothered to show up for thier Intel meetings, maybe they could have evaluated the information more closely. After all, they spoke out so eloquently in favor of the invasion at the time.

If anyone believes that at the time anybody was not clear that GWB would invade with authorization by law, then I'm afraid they weren't paying attention.

Saddam was going to get out of the box.  He was going to reconstitute his weapons.  His sons were maniacs too.  That country represented a stumbling block to the us in preventing new terrorists with new weapons emerging from the middle east.

He was paying the families of terrorists for their death, he was harboring terrorists and sanctioning training camps.  The broad view on the war on terror is to stop terrorist completely.

The US is the most powerful country in the world. It's our moral obligation to protect ourselves and others.

Maybe we should ask these people if getting rid of Saddam was a good idea or not----


King of the Flying Monkeys from the Dark Side

patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Good debate
« Reply #111 on: October 07, 2004, 11:10:11 am »
Saddam was going to get out of the box.  He was going to reconstitute his weapons.  His sons were maniacs too.  That country represented a stumbling block to the us in preventing new terrorists with new weapons emerging from the middle east.

He was paying the families of terrorists for their death, he was harboring terrorists and sanctioning training camps.  The broad view on the war on terror is to stop terrorist completely.
Where are you getting that from? All info I have seen indicated that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism. In fact terrorists hated his guts and vice versa. The religeous group Saddam belongs to (and Saddam in particular) is despised by the anti-US terrorists and Saddam combatted the terrorists as brutally as the world ever witnessed. They hate each other about as much as all muslims seem to hate (north) americans. The terrorists actually blame the US for Saddam since they helped him to power to begin with. Saying saddam helped terrorists is about as insane as the connections some people try to make between Bush family and Bin Laden.

All that the Iraq situation is doing is creating a bigger playingfield for terrorists. The US will leave Iraq soon and then the country will fall into the hands of the shia muslims. That's the group were the anti-US terrorists seem to come from mostly. Now that Saddam is no longer oprressing them and the US will leave, what do you think they will do? The way the Bush is mishandling the situation there only helps to inflame the shia muslims.

Bush might have set out to do the proper thing but he completely goofed up. Now the whole region is a mess and they (the people who live there) all blame it on the US. Angry people without any money are prime recruiting material for terrorist groups.

Wars don't counter terrorism. You can't stop that by conventional forces (ask the israelies, brittans or russians and for that matter the US force that went to vietnam). Actually wars like this only provoke terrorists. Don't forget that the september 11 attacks were essentially punishment for the first desert storm (not so much the war on Iraq perhaps, but still). This war will only bring more terrorists and more terrorist attacks. Of course it's now mostly concentrated inside Iraq, but that will change when the US leaves Iraq.
This signature is intentionally left blank

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #112 on: October 07, 2004, 10:32:18 pm »
This war will only bring more terrorists and more terrorist attacks. Of course it's now mostly concentrated inside Iraq, but that will change when the US leaves Iraq.
I don't even know where to begin with you.  I cannot fathom your logic whatsoever.  We were attacked, which is our fault, we acted, and this will bring more attacks, which is our fault, and it will continue to be our fault each and every time something happens to us, by that friggen logic.

Will there ever be a situation under which the fault for action against the U.S. would be the responsibility of a lunatic terrorist group, or do you believe that the U.S. is that lunatic terrorist group?



Alright.  To solve the evil image we have in the U.S., I propose that tomorrow, we free Sadaam and return him to Iraq.  Since we won't need to spend all that money on the war, we give it to Sadaam to rebuild his country.  Haliburton will have to help, or no more "no bid contracts" for them.  Oh, and we pull out each and every troop from there.  Lastly, we go to the U.N. and work to pass a proposition where France and Russia can renew their Oil-For-Food programs and continue selling them arms and weapons/weapon supplies.

Our biggest mistake was in meddling in Iraq, so returning Sadaam will fix everything, since he didn't have WMD's and was busy complying with the U.N. resolutions and wasn't a threat to his own people, and wasn't looking to develop WMD's.

You've got to agree with that solution, right?
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #113 on: October 07, 2004, 10:46:12 pm »
All info I have seen indicated that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism. In fact terrorists hated his guts and vice versa.
So the terrorists hate Sadaam's guts

Quote
The religeous group Saddam belongs to (and Saddam in particular) is despised by the anti-US terrorists and Saddam combatted the terrorists as brutally as the world ever witnessed. They hate each other about as much as all muslims seem to hate (north) americans. The terrorists actually blame the US for Saddam since they helped him to power to begin with.
The terrorists hate Sadaam's guts, and they blame the U.S. for Sadaam's actions against them

Quote
Saying saddam helped terrorists is about as insane as the connections some people try to make between Bush family and Bin Laden.
O.K.  So if I follow you here so far, Sadaam wouldn't help terrorists.  The terrorists hate his guts, blame us for him, and Sadaam brutally fights them.

Quote
All that the Iraq situation is doing is creating a bigger playingfield for terrorists. The US will leave Iraq soon and then the country will fall into the hands of the shia muslims. That's the group were the anti-US terrorists seem to come from mostly.
The US will leave Iraq, soon after, the anti-US muslim group will come into power.

Quote
Now that Saddam is no longer oprressing them and the US will leave, what do you think they will do? The way the Bush is mishandling the situation there only helps to inflame the shia muslims.
It's Bush's idiocy that is making the anti-US muslim group despise us more.



So by your reasoning, Sadaam was busy fighting all the andti-US muslim groups for Bush, and doing a damn fine job of it.  Instead of Bush realizing this and heading over to personally shake Sadaam's hand, he just had a bug up his @$$ to beat him down for daddy.  Not realizing the stellar job of defending the U.S. that Sadaam was doing for us, he went in and screwed everything up, making the world a less safe place for the U.S. by REMOVING Sadaam, which in turn will bring the wrath of the groups Sadaam was so brutally fighting for us.  


How long each night do you sleep, because dreaming this crap up must take HOURS!
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

Mameotron

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re:Good debate
« Reply #114 on: October 08, 2004, 12:28:05 am »

Don't forget that the september 11 attacks were essentially punishment for the first desert storm (not so much the war on Iraq perhaps, but still).

That's right, desert storm was because Saddam was brutally fighting against the US-hating muslim terrorist groups by attacking Kuwait and taking over their oil fields.  George Bush just screwed it all up by answereing the frantic calls of the OPEC countries.

fredster

  • Grand Prophet of Arcadeology
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2311
  • Last login:February 16, 2019, 04:28:53 pm
  • It's all good!
Re:Good debate
« Reply #115 on: October 08, 2004, 09:02:15 am »
Patrickl,

Vietnam was lost because the US lost it's will to fight. People like Kerry infiltrated the US and took our resolve.  If you know anything of that war you know that we were very close to victory but we held back.  Vietnam isn't a good comparison to this situation at all.

Leaving these people alone is the Nevil Chamberland way of doing things.  If you think we should just take our ball and go home, well, rocky the squirl said it best when he said "ah that trick never works".

Terrorists are pouring into Iraq.  Looks like a central point to fight them.  Bush says it all the time, we fight them there so we don't have to fight them at home.

You haven't been paying attention on the ties between the terrorist groups and Iraq.  the 9/11 report said there was no direct corelation between 9/11 and Saddam.  It doesn't say there were NO ties. Al-Queada isn't the ONLY terrorist organization.

The "War on Terror" was on ALL terrorists.  

Since you have conclusively stated that wars don't prevent terrorism, exactly what does prevent terrorism?  

How about if we all just become Muslims.  Will that bring peace to the world??



King of the Flying Monkeys from the Dark Side

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Good debate
« Reply #116 on: October 08, 2004, 09:17:19 am »
Vietnam was lost because the US lost it's will to fight. People like Kerry infiltrated the US and took our resolve.  If you know anything of that war you know that we were very close to victory but we held back.  Vietnam isn't a good comparison to this situation at all.

I wonder how many Gulf War II veterans are going to come home and declare themselves "war criminals", as Kerry did.


Terrorists are pouring into Iraq.  Looks like a central point to fight them.  Bush says it all the time, we fight them there so we don't have to fight them at home.

And they say he's an idiot.

We're on the strategic offensive - we're forcing them to fight us there because they can't afford to let us stay.  This is far better than the alternative.


patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Good debate
« Reply #117 on: October 08, 2004, 10:33:40 am »
All info I have seen indicated that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism. In fact terrorists hated his guts and vice versa.
So the terrorists hate Sadaam's guts

Quote
The religeous group Saddam belongs to (and Saddam in particular) is despised by the anti-US terrorists and Saddam combatted the terrorists as brutally as the world ever witnessed. They hate each other about as much as all muslims seem to hate (north) americans. The terrorists actually blame the US for Saddam since they helped him to power to begin with.
The terrorists hate Sadaam's guts, and they blame the U.S. for Sadaam's actions against them

Quote
Saying saddam helped terrorists is about as insane as the connections some people try to make between Bush family and Bin Laden.
O.K.  So if I follow you here so far, Sadaam wouldn't help terrorists.  The terrorists hate his guts, blame us for him, and Sadaam brutally fights them.

Quote
All that the Iraq situation is doing is creating a bigger playingfield for terrorists. The US will leave Iraq soon and then the country will fall into the hands of the shia muslims. That's the group were the anti-US terrorists seem to come from mostly.
The US will leave Iraq, soon after, the anti-US muslim group will come into power.

Quote
Now that Saddam is no longer oprressing them and the US will leave, what do you think they will do? The way the Bush is mishandling the situation there only helps to inflame the shia muslims.
It's Bush's idiocy that is making the anti-US muslim group despise us more.



So by your reasoning, Sadaam was busy fighting all the andti-US muslim groups for Bush, and doing a damn fine job of it.  Instead of Bush realizing this and heading over to personally shake Sadaam's hand, he just had a bug up his @$$ to beat him down for daddy.  Not realizing the stellar job of defending the U.S. that Sadaam was doing for us, he went in and screwed everything up, making the world a less safe place for the U.S. by REMOVING Sadaam, which in turn will bring the wrath of the groups Sadaam was so brutally fighting for us.  
Did you ever read a newspaper? Saddam was opressing the shia muslims in the south. So (or because) they hate each other. Most (anti us) terrorists are shia muslims. These two are perhaps unrelated but it doesn't take more than two braincells to see this fact.

I guess you also failed to notice that there are several hundred US deaths (of course CNN never counts other nationalities) from shi muslims attacking the US army. Why do you think they do that? Because they are so very happy?
This signature is intentionally left blank

Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Good debate
« Reply #118 on: October 08, 2004, 10:38:09 am »
"we're forcing them to fight us there because they can't afford to let us stay.  This is far better than the alternative."

Consider this though guys:

If you were a terrorist, would you run into Iraq (where the US would kick your ass) or would you put your gun under the mattress and wait for a better "opportunity"?  Terrorism doesn't work against military personnel in the same way it does with civilians.
We need to be very careful in how we are portrayed in Iraq so the "secret" terrorists don't have a recruiting field day.  Right now we are building military bases in Iraq.  How would we feel if another country started building bases in Texas?  Resentment can be a powerful emotion.

The question I ask is: Isn't calling Iraq the battleground for the "war on terror" like calling Brazil the battleground for the "war on drugs"?  I think it's oversimplifying things a bit.  Terrorists don't come out of hiding to stand in the street and fight, it's not their method of operation.

patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Good debate
« Reply #119 on: October 08, 2004, 10:41:57 am »
Patrickl,

Vietnam was lost because the US lost it's will to fight. People like Kerry infiltrated the US and took our resolve.  If you know anything of that war you know that we were very close to victory but we held back.  
The US didn't have a chance in hell to win that war. Apart from nuking the place. Well so maybe yor right had the not held back the nukes they would have won. Thing is, you cannot occupy a nation that rather fights to the death than to be occupied.
Quote
Vietnam isn't a good comparison to this situation at all.
If this situation in Iraq continues much longer the exact same thing will happen.

Quote
You haven't been paying attention on the ties between the terrorist groups and Iraq.  the 9/11 report said there was no direct corelation between 9/11 and Saddam.  It doesn't say there were NO ties. Al-Queada isn't the ONLY terrorist organization.
Sorry, but I did pay attention. 911 is strictly Al-Queada and Bin Laden had nothing todo with Saddam.

Quote
The "War on Terror" was on ALL terrorists.  
... and the war on Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorists.

Quote
Since you have conclusively stated that wars don't prevent terrorism, exactly what does prevent terrorism?  
Making people happy. Compare the outcome of kicking someone in the nuts and helping someone get a job.

Besides, I already said how. Solve the conflict with Israel. I might add: don't interfere with other countries internal affairs so much (it always backfires on the US anyway).
This signature is intentionally left blank

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Good debate
« Reply #120 on: October 08, 2004, 10:58:26 am »
If you were a terrorist, would you run into Iraq (where the US would kick your ass) or would you put your gun under the mattress and wait for a better "opportunity"?

So... the terrorists aren't flocking to Iraq?
Doesnt this undermine the argument that "there weren;t terrorists in Iraq until we invaded"?


Right now we are building military bases in Iraq.

At the behest of and with the permission of the Iraqi government.

How would we feel if another country started building bases in Texas?  Resentment can be a powerful emotion.

If our government said it was OK?




Terrorists don't come out of hiding to stand in the street and fight, it's not their method of operation.

They -were- until they figured out that when they do, they get slaughtered.

Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Good debate
« Reply #121 on: October 08, 2004, 11:31:02 am »
My feeling is: No, the terrorists are not flocking to Iraq.  It's the members of local "warlords" and such fighting to protect what they have.  IMO, Saddam did not rule Iraq in the traditional sense of the word.  He let the local dudes run their own show.  Kind of like a mob.  If they stepped too far out of line, they got wacked.  Otherwise, as long as they paid tribute to him, they could do what they wanted.  Now they are in a fight for territory and power with a common enemy.  Why do you think we call them insurgents and not terrorists?  Terrorists do not stand out in the open to fight.  They hide out.  btw: I've never said there wasn't terrorists in Iraq before we invaded.  They're here, they're there, they're everywhere.  So said the great Doctor Seuss.

Your arguement about the Iraqi government is circular.  The current government was placed there by us, of course it will give us permission to do what we want.  Would we have put someone in power that didn't agree with what we wanted to do?  My point isn't with the permission of the government, it's with the views of the Iraqi people.  How do THEY see what we are doing?  If they see us in a bad light, what are their other options?  Side with one of the local warlords in a fight for power or turn to terrorism.

Floyd10

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re:Good debate
« Reply #122 on: October 08, 2004, 11:33:04 am »
Im with smart ^^^

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Good debate
« Reply #123 on: October 08, 2004, 11:52:13 am »
You know, of course, that there is a significant non-Iraqi AQ component to the insurgency, right?


Now they are in a fight for territory and power with a common enemy.  Why do you think we call them insurgents and not terrorists?  Terrorists do not stand out in the open to fight.  They hide out.

Nor do the insurgents.   If they did, they'd be called an "army".  



The current government was placed there by us, of course it will give us permission to do what we want.  Would we have put someone in power that didn't agree with what we wanted to do?

Just like in Japan and Germany.   Whats the point?



My point isn't with the permission of the government, it's with the views of the Iraqi people.  How do THEY see what we are doing?

The people in general, or the insurgents?

Why would the people of Iraq want to live under another Ba'athist government?  Or a Iran-style Theocracy?


shmokes

  • Just think of all the suffering in this world that could have been avoided had I just been a little better informed. :)
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10471
  • Last login:September 24, 2016, 06:50:42 pm
  • Don't tread on me.
    • Jake Moses
Re:Good debate
« Reply #124 on: October 08, 2004, 11:52:59 am »
We were attacked, which is our fault, we acted, and this will bring more attacks, which is our fault

Oh god....not you too, Drew.  I know full well that you don't believe Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.  "We were attacked....we acted???"  You know better.  For the love of god, can't you see that nobody here has made the slightest criticism about the war in Afghanistan aside from the fact that we should have sent and still should have a much larger presence there.

This isn't about the dems not wanting to protect our country from threats.  We just seem to be the only ones who can get it through our heads that Iraq was not a problem.  Is there some fantastic hypothetical situation where they could one day be a problem?  Yes.  But we've got some pretty damn big problems RIGHT NOW.  Such as Al Queida, Suadi's in particular, crashing jets into our World Trade Centers.  You can go on your what if Saddam did this, what if Saddam did that until your blue in the face.  But I have the luxury of not needing to make my case by saying, "What if Al Queida blows up the two tallest buildings in New York City with 3000 people inside," if that can be called a luxury.  I don't need to use hypotheticals.

You know...I'm changing my position on Gun Control.  I think they should all be legal, but that republicans should just not be allowed to own them.  You people have no idea how to be responsible with your weapons.  And you suffer from dillusional paranoia.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2004, 04:35:01 pm by shmokes »
Check out my website for in-depth reviews of children's books, games, and educational apps for the iPad:

Best Kid iPad Apps

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #125 on: October 08, 2004, 05:05:49 pm »
Did you ever read a newspaper? Saddam was opressing the shia muslims in the south. So (or because) they hate each other. Most (anti us) terrorists are shia muslims. These two are perhaps unrelated but it doesn't take more than two braincells to see this fact.

I guess you also failed to notice that there are several hundred US deaths (of course CNN never counts other nationalities) from shi muslims attacking the US army. Why do you think they do that? Because they are so very happy?
Nope, I never read a newspaper, or for that matter, listen to CNN.  Now, please post your answer to my solution, as those few sentences failed to state that my solution, based on your "facts" is either right, in your view, or wrong, in your view.

In case you missed it:
Quote
Alright.  To solve the evil image we have in the U.S., I propose that tomorrow, we free Sadaam and return him to Iraq.  Since we won't need to spend all that money on the war, we give it to Sadaam to rebuild his country.  Haliburton will have to help, or no more "no bid contracts" for them.  Oh, and we pull out each and every troop from there.  Lastly, we go to the U.N. and work to pass a proposition where France and Russia can renew their Oil-For-Food programs and continue selling them arms and weapons/weapon supplies.

Our biggest mistake was in meddling in Iraq, so returning Sadaam will fix everything, since he didn't have WMD's and was busy complying with the U.N. resolutions and wasn't a threat to his own people, and wasn't looking to develop WMD's.
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

Grasshopper

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2325
  • Last login:March 22, 2020, 04:35:49 pm
  • life, don't talk to me about life
Re:Good debate
« Reply #126 on: October 08, 2004, 05:23:15 pm »
Interesting thread.

A lot of people here are presuming to know what the Iraqi people actually want.

When the Iraqis are given the chance to vote in 'free and fair' elections (assuming they ever are) will they be given a genuine choice? I'm not optimistic given that citizens of many western countries (including sadly Britain and America) live in 'two party dictatorships' and thus also don't get a genuine choice.

What if, in addition to western style parties, the Iraqis were given the choice of voting for an extremist Islamic party, or a secular arab nationalist (but still anti-western) party? Who would they choose and in what proportions? Obviously no one really knows the answer but it would be interesting to find out. And what would happen if they made the wrong choice (from America's perspective)?

"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." - Samuel Johnson

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #127 on: October 08, 2004, 05:33:08 pm »
Oh god....not you too, Drew.  I know full well that you don't believe Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.  "We were attacked....we acted???"  You know better.  For the love of god, can't you see that nobody here has made the slightest criticism about the war in Afghanistan aside from the fact that we should have sent and still should have a much larger presence there.

This isn't about the dems not wanting to protect our country from threats.  We just seem to be the only ones who can get it through our heads that Iraq was not a problem.  Is there some fantastic hypothetical situation where they could one day be a problem?  Yes.  But we've got some pretty damn big problems RIGHT NOW.  Such as Al Queida, Suadi's in particular, crashing jets into our World Trade Centers.  You can go on your what if Saddam did this, what if Saddam did that until your blue in the face.

Here's what I believe.  We went to Afghanistan to hunt down the Taliban.  We did NOT send hundreds of thousands of troops there, because it WAS like fighting in that "quagmire" called Vietnam.  The "home team" had knowledge and fighting tactics that, while having a small army, gave them sufficient tactical advantage over us that the only way to have been sure we eliminated them all would have been to drop Glass-Factory-MakersTM.  The American people want that to be THE last resort.  

While we were there, we were gathering intelligence from our agencies, as well as other countries, and they all pointed to Sadaam still in possession of WMD's.  I believe we also had reason to believe, at that time, that Sadaam was/did harbor terrorists, and that he was working with them to attack the U.S.  I believe that after years of resolutions, Sadaam believed that this would be like any other resolution, where he could blow it off.  I believe that Bush looked at the information he had available to hiim at the time, viewed leaving Sadaam in power as a viable option ONLY if he fully complied with the U.N., and BELIEVED Sadaam still had weapons, as he was given numerous times to show otherwise, and was contentious to the point of leading everyone to believe he still had WMD's, as the intelligence agencies of numerous countries believed.

I believe that Bush decided to act against Sadaam, and believed that during this fight, the U.S. would find people who could further help us find bin Laden, find out where Sadaam's WMD's were hidden, and free a people that knew nothing but Sadaam's oppression.  

It's not a matter of "what-if's".  Giving you the examples of Sadaam's actions over years of U.N. resolutions WOULD, in fact, make me blue in the face.  I'd have to take a breath every so often.

That's what makes liberals/conservatives different.  You seem to think Iraq wasn't a problem, whereas we do.  The cry has gone up about "let's go here, let's go there" when similar situations happen in other areas of the world (Sudan, N. Korea, Iran).  If it's wrong that we didn't send enough troops into Afghanistan, how can it be right to take troops from BOTH Afghanistan and Iraq to go to those places NOW?

WHEN will someone finally say "Dammit, France and Russia were wanting to be repaid from Iraq, NO WONDER they didn't want to go!".  WHEN will soeone finally say "Dammit, France and Russia need to put the smackdown on N. Korea, Sudan, Iran...unless they AGREE with the things going on there."  

Are WE, THE U.S., the ONLY nation that is wiling to do something?  If so, then WHY IN RUDY'S NAME DOES NO ONE REALIZE THAT?  

If we're the only ones who will act, then why is the U.N. held up as this beacon of hope when dealing with rogue nations?
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Good debate
« Reply #128 on: October 08, 2004, 05:59:12 pm »
What if, in addition to western style parties, the Iraqis were given the choice of voting for an extremist Islamic party, or a secular arab nationalist (but still anti-western) party? Who would they choose and in what proportions? Obviously no one really knows the answer but it would be interesting to find out. And what would happen if they made the wrong choice (from America's perspective)?

The Allies did not allow Nazis to run for government in Germany.

Nazis -still- cant run for goverment in Germany.

Does the exclusion of a particular faction from running for government mean that said government isnt legitimate?


Quote

Grasshopper

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2325
  • Last login:March 22, 2020, 04:35:49 pm
  • life, don't talk to me about life
Re:Good debate
« Reply #129 on: October 08, 2004, 06:14:48 pm »
What if, in addition to western style parties, the Iraqis were given the choice of voting for an extremist Islamic party, or a secular arab nationalist (but still anti-western) party? Who would they choose and in what proportions? Obviously no one really knows the answer but it would be interesting to find out. And what would happen if they made the wrong choice (from America's perspective)?

The Allies did not allow Nazis to run for government in Germany.

Nazis -still- cant run for goverment in Germany.

Does the exclusion of a particular faction from running for government mean that said government isnt legitimate?


Quote

Yes, sometimes.

To use your example, if the Germans were prevented from voting for the Nazi party AND the majority of Germans wanted to vote for the Nazi party, then the party that actually got into power would, by definition, not be legitimate.

Sorry but that's democracy. You have to take the rough with the smooth.

You can't say I believe in democracy as long as a party with a philosophy broadly similar to mine gets into power!!

To any Germans reading, I'm not suggesting for one minute that the majority of you are Nazi sympathisers I'm just using a hypothetical example to back up my point.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." - Samuel Johnson

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #130 on: October 08, 2004, 06:18:38 pm »
Consider this though guys:

If you were a terrorist, would you run into Iraq (where the US would kick your ass) or would you put your gun under the mattress and wait for a better "opportunity"?  Terrorism doesn't work against military personnel in the same way it does with civilians.
they're so fanatical in their goal to kill Americans, they employ suicide bombers.  How do you stuff a suicide bomber under the mattress?  What better opportunity for a suicide bomber than the chance to kill the very people defending American?

Quote
The question I ask is: Isn't calling Iraq the battleground for the "war on terror" like calling Brazil the battleground for the "war on drugs"?  I think it's oversimplifying things a bit.  Terrorists don't come out of hiding to stand in the street and fight, it's not their method of operation.
You've oversimplified it to the point that you've missed the fact that they AREN'T standing in the street and fighting.  They're hiding in buildings, building booby traps, sending suicide bombers, building car bombs....it's not as simplistic (the fight they're waging) as you paint it.
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #131 on: October 08, 2004, 06:33:20 pm »
Quote
Since you have conclusively stated that wars don't prevent terrorism, exactly what does prevent terrorism?  
Making people happy. Compare the outcome of kicking someone in the nuts and helping someone get a job.
care to make known what "making people happy" means?  Give them a rubber ball?  That simplistic "make 'em happy" is a smoke screen.  Tell us how you would go about making EVEYRONE happy, because terrorism starts with ONE person who gets others who are marginally happy to follow.  Solve the conflict with Israel is how you'd make them happy.  How exactly, again, did you say you'd solve the conflict with Israel?  I see the pie, but it's not in the sky yet.  Please put it there for all to see.

Quote
I might add: don't interfere with other countries internal affairs so much (it always backfires on the US anyway)
You're right, it always backfires on the U.S., but for some reason, if we didn't send money to other countries to help solve their "internal affairs", we're painted as the Evil Empire.  We're damned if we do, and damned if we don't.  

The U.S. sends out so much foreign aid it's ridiculous that no one EVER says "stop sending that money away, we're in debt up to our eyeballs HERE!".   And make no mistake about it, foreign aid DOES include more than money, and it DOES mean that we're "interfering with other countries internal affairs."
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Good debate
« Reply #132 on: October 08, 2004, 06:49:27 pm »
Sorry but that's democracy. You have to take the rough with the smooth.

You know, of course, that democracy, in an of itself, is valueless.  Its perfectly possibly to have an abjectly evil democracy.

Two wolves and a chicken deciding on dinner...

In order for "democracy" to mean anything, there has to be limints on what the majority can do in that democracy.  If its necessary for the majorty to be limited in their political power in order to maintain the rights of others, then its necessary - and if its not done, then you have the rule of the jungle, not the rule of law.

Given that, and the histoprical examples we have, I have no problem at all with a gvmnt in Iraq that precludes a theocracy.

After all - we have that here.   Right?

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Good debate
« Reply #133 on: October 08, 2004, 06:52:48 pm »
The U.S. sends out so much foreign aid it's ridiculous...

And no one sends -us- a thing.

4 hurricanes hit Florida this summer.  Massive damage everywhere.  Last figure I heard was $28B.

How much aid did we receive from the world?

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #134 on: October 08, 2004, 06:58:53 pm »
Why do you think we call them insurgents and not terrorists?
we call them insurgents because words have power in their meaning.  They are terrorists, plain and simple.  The two words and their meaning fully explain the difference.  What you're failing to realize is that the shift in words doesn't make what WAS done go away.  The people now called "insurgents" are still "terrorists".  Only now that they're fighting to keep their power, they can only sporadically inflict methods of terror.  To label them "insurgents" is to look the other way about the mass graves in Iraq.  It is to look the other way about the punishments and torture doled out by Sadaam's sons.  It is to look the other way at the beheadings.  It is to ignore the possibility that those who seek to bring vengeance against the U.S. AREN'T coming into Iraq to fight against our troops.

Here:
Terrorist - one who uses force and violence to intimidate, subjugate, etc.  Do the mass graves in Iraq ring a bell?  Does the use of biological weapons against the Iraqi's fit that definition?  In the twisting of the definition, many will proudly proclaim "Isn't that what the U.S. is doing right now?  We have a record to stand on regarding our use of force and the knowledge to know when to stop when we are victorious.  Ask Japan.  

Insurgent - rising up against established authoritythese aren't insurgents.  They seek to fight against us to remove us from the region so they can continue their terroristic ways.  By this stupid label, the Iraqi people who "rose up" against Sadaam and were put into mass graves, sometimes still alive, were insurgents.  What form of "rising up" did the thousands who had biological agents used against them...what did they do?  Stand up and say "Sadaam, I don't have to listen to you, because I'm impervious to biological agents?

Its a war of words that does a greater disservice by slowly turning the public's opinion away from what is actually happening.  Being killed by a suicide bomber is an act of terrorism, yet that person will be considered an insurgent.   Being beheaded by someone is a terroristic act, yet those people are considered a group of insurgents.
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

Grasshopper

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2325
  • Last login:March 22, 2020, 04:35:49 pm
  • life, don't talk to me about life
Re:Good debate
« Reply #135 on: October 08, 2004, 07:04:06 pm »
Sorry but that's democracy. You have to take the rough with the smooth.

You know, of course, that democracy, in an of itself, is valueless.  Its perfectly possibly to have an abjectly evil democracy.

Two wolves and a chicken deciding on dinner...

In order for "democracy" to mean anything, there has to be limints on what the majority can do in that democracy.  If its necessary for the majorty to be limited in their political power in order to maintain the rights of others, then its necessary - and if its not done, then you have the rule of the jungle, not the rule of law.

Given that, and the histoprical examples we have, I have no problem at all with a gvmnt in Iraq that precludes a theocracy.

After all - we have that here.   Right?

Well I would agree with you that there is a lot more to 'democracy' than majority voting (if that is what you're saying). But a democracy is a sham if the government doesn't, at least broadly speaking, represent the will of the people.

You cannot impose democracy on a people it has to come from them, and at this point in time we really have no idea what the Iraqis want.

If the owerwhelming majority of them want a western style democracy then fine. But if not then we've got a problem.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." - Samuel Johnson

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Good debate
« Reply #136 on: October 08, 2004, 07:28:10 pm »
But a democracy is a sham if the government doesn't, at least broadly speaking, represent the will of the people.

So if the people of the United States wanted a theocracy -and were barred from one (as they would be) we would not longer have a democracy?


You cannot impose democracy on a people it has to come from them, and at this point in time we really have no idea what the Iraqis want.

We've have three major successes at doing this.
Germany, Japan, Korea.
We cant do it?


Grasshopper

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2325
  • Last login:March 22, 2020, 04:35:49 pm
  • life, don't talk to me about life
Re:Good debate
« Reply #137 on: October 08, 2004, 08:04:23 pm »
But a democracy is a sham if the government doesn't, at least broadly speaking, represent the will of the people.

So if the people of the United States wanted a theocracy -and were barred from one (as they would be) we would not longer have a democracy?


Yes, for two reasons.

Firstly, a necessary component of democracy is that the government, broadly speaking, must represent the views of the people.

Secondly, as I said earlier, democracy has to come from the people it cannot be imposed. If the majority of Americans choose a theocracy then they have by definition rejected the idea of democracy.



You cannot impose democracy on a people it has to come from them, and at this point in time we really have no idea what the Iraqis want.

We've have three major successes at doing this.
Germany, Japan, Korea.
We cant do it?



Well I sincerely hope that Iraq does become a genuine democracy one day.

If you stay for long enough and pump enough money in then there is a chance, but Bush's inept diplomacy and lack of forward planning has made the job much harder than it otherwise would have been.

Germany, Japan and Korea were undoubtedly successes. But we had a better calibre of American leader then.

Unfortunately, there have been more recent examples where America intervention has resulted in a dictatorship for example Chile in the 70s.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." - Samuel Johnson

Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Good debate
« Reply #138 on: October 08, 2004, 09:09:23 pm »
"That's what makes liberals/conservatives different.  You seem to think Iraq wasn't a problem, whereas we do.  The cry has gone up about "let's go here, let's go there" when similar situations happen in other areas of the world (Sudan, N. Korea, Iran).  If it's wrong that we didn't send enough troops into Afghanistan, how can it be right to take troops from BOTH Afghanistan and Iraq to go to those places NOW?"
Iraq was/is a problem.  But not the biggest.  We *thought* Iraq had this, that & the other thing but lacked enough proof to convince other nations.  We KNEW N. Korea had/has nukes.  They admitted it.  So who was the greatest threat?  Based on the "pre-emptive strike" theory, IMO we should have gone into N. korea instead of Iraq.  Based on the "humanitarian" theory: Sudan (maybe, I'm not well versed on that topic but it looks that way).  Based on the "terrorism" theory: Afganistan.

It comes down to Bush needing a list.  A list that starts like this:

Iraq: Chemical/biological WMD's?
Iran: Nukes?
N. Korea: Has Nukes.  Says it will make more.
Pakistan: Has Nukes.
Russia: Has Nukes.  Doesn't know where they all are.
Afganistan: Has Terrorists.

Where would you concentrate efforts?

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Good debate
« Reply #139 on: October 08, 2004, 09:54:29 pm »
Firstly, a necessary component of democracy is that the government, broadly speaking, must represent the views of the people.

Ok...  so how does that necessitate that a Theocracy cannot be a democracy, and vice versa?


Secondly, as I said earlier, democracy has to come from the people it cannot be imposed. If the majority of Americans choose a theocracy then they have by definition rejected the idea of democracy.

How so?
The people cannot choose their leaders and representatives under a theocracy?  Why not?



Well I sincerely hope that Iraq does become a genuine democracy one day.

Indeed.  This will change the Middle East forever.
Change thats a long time coming.


If you stay for long enough and pump enough money in then there is a chance, but Bush's inept diplomacy and lack of forward planning has made the job much harder than it otherwise would have been.

Thanks, Senator Kerry.

You know, I'm puzzled.
If Germany and France were with us in Iraq, would you make the same statement?
If so...  why does the cooperation of France and Germany determine "successful diplomacy"?


Germany, Japan and Korea were undoubtedly successes. But we had a better calibre of American leader then.

Whoa!!   I thought Kerry was in Missouri?

Again:
If Germany and France were with us in Iraq, would you make the same statement?
If so...  why does the cooperation of France and Germany determine "successful diplomacy"?

And lets not forget:
Many of the complaintys you here today about whats not going right in Iraq, you heard all through the late 40s regarding Germany and Japan.  Reconstruction of a demolished couintry isnt easy.  No one has more experience at it than us.


Unfortunately, there have been more recent examples where America intervention has resulted in a dictatorship for example Chile in the 70s.

Can you name another country that has taken two powerful totalitarian states and created 3 vibrant democracies from them?  In doing so, the United States has brought more people to freedom than all of the other countries in the world combined.

If we can't do it, it cant be done.
If it cant be done, the world is doomed to darkness.

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #140 on: October 08, 2004, 09:56:44 pm »
Iraq was/is a problem.  But not the biggest.  We *thought* Iraq had this, that & the other thing but lacked enough proof to convince other nations.
We didn't need proof to convince other nations.  They possessed their own proof.  When other nations gave intelligence information that THEY had gathered that Sadaam possessed WMD's.  I think you've forgotten that fact.  Everyone was convinced Sadaam had WMD's, which would be a big problem.  Since we didn't know exactly WHAT WMD's he possessed at that time, I consider it highly suspect that you can say it wasn't the biggest.  You have to use hindsight to make that argument, and we're arguing about what was happening AT THAT TIME

The IAEA found in 1991-92 the indications that Iraq, N. Korea, and S. Africa were pursuing nuclear development programs.  Now, maybe Sadaam is suddenly the believable truth-teller on the block, but not accounting for weapons according to U.N. Resolution after Resolution would lead me to believe that it JUST MIGHT be possible that he hasn't been honest regarding ANYTHING he did/didn't have.  Maybe you're willing to believe that N. Korea is telling the truth, and Sadaam never had anything either, but I'm a bit more cynical.   We had to make a choice.  We chose Iraq.  

We are now using several countries to exert pressure on N. Korea.  This is the same process we used with Iraq, but for some reason, NOW it's not good policy.  NOW we should "go in with guns blazing".  It was OK for us to stay out of Iraq for several years, but now we should attack.  

 ::)
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Good debate
« Reply #141 on: October 08, 2004, 09:59:30 pm »
Iraq was/is a problem.  But not the biggest.

Perhaps not.   But you dont always have to go after the biggest problem first (see: WW2 - going after Africa and Italy beofre invading France).


We *thought* Iraq had this, that & the other thing but lacked enough proof to convince other nations.

THIS is bunk.
ALL the "allies" were convinced of the threat of Iraqi WMDs.  French and German and Russian intel all confirmed what our intel said.

No, their lack of motivation to help us had nothing to do with lack of evidence of WMDs - it had -everything- to do with their pockets being lined by Iraqi oil money.
 


We KNEW N. Korea had/has nukes.  They admitted it.  So who was the greatest threat?  Based on the "pre-emptive strike" theory, IMO we should have gone into N. korea instead of Iraq.

Only if you believe that diplomacy has failed in NKorea.
Do you believe this?



patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Good debate
« Reply #142 on: October 09, 2004, 09:50:14 am »
Did you ever read a newspaper? Saddam was opressing the shia muslims in the south. So (or because) they hate each other. Most (anti us) terrorists are shia muslims. These two are perhaps unrelated but it doesn't take more than two braincells to see this fact.

I guess you also failed to notice that there are several hundred US deaths (of course CNN never counts other nationalities) from shi muslims attacking the US army. Why do you think they do that? Because they are so very happy?
Nope, I never read a newspaper, or for that matter, listen to CNN.  Now, please post your answer to my solution, as those few sentences failed to state that my solution, based on your "facts" is either right, in your view, or wrong, in your view.

In case you missed it:
Quote
Alright.  To solve the evil image we have in the U.S., I propose that tomorrow, we free Sadaam and return him to Iraq.  Since we won't need to spend all that money on the war, we give it to Sadaam to rebuild his country.  Haliburton will have to help, or no more "no bid contracts" for them.  Oh, and we pull out each and every troop from there.  Lastly, we go to the U.N. and work to pass a proposition where France and Russia can renew their Oil-For-Food programs and continue selling them arms and weapons/weapon supplies.

Our biggest mistake was in meddling in Iraq, so returning Sadaam will fix everything, since he didn't have WMD's and was busy complying with the U.N. resolutions and wasn't a threat to his own people, and wasn't looking to develop WMD's.
Drew you (purposefully?) misinterpret my message and then you formulate a ridiculous claim based on that misinterpretation. Why do I need to respond to that? But if you insist I'll try once more ...

I'm not against an invasion of Iraq (I never said so) and I DID say that Saddam was a threat to his people. I merely stated that going to war in the mindless way that Bush did, does much more harm than good in the long run.

Of course the war in Afghanistan helped a lot in bringing Al Qaida down (temporarily at least) and the war in Iraq draws terrorist to that region (again temporarily), but the war in Iraq has no purpose in actually fighting against terrorism. I claim the opposite in that history proves that wars like these only increase terrorism. It's too late now of course, the damage is already done. You're all in this ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- now and perhaps Kerry can get you out in one piece.

I'm not really sure what Bush was thinking (no pun intended) at the time when he insisted on going to war so prematurely. Personally I think it's about his personal glory (look daddy, I finished your job) and the idea that he could get a "free war" (if the war was won he could steal plenty of Iraqi oil to cover for expenses and let US companies rebuild the damage he made for some extra money for his friends) I know this sounds like a conspiracy theory, but it makes a huge lot more sense than claiming there is/was a terrorist link between Saddam and Bin Laden.

He even might have thought it would be a bold statement to scare other rogue nations (like Libya, Syria, Iran, North Korea and France). But then the problem is that this assumes that "violence solves everything". In fact, violence is the reason why the middle east is in such a mess right now. Kill one man and his whole family is against you. So every kill is more likely to increase the number of terrorists. As I said before, the previous war was the main reason planes flew into the two towers. Although Saddam or the actual war on Iraq itself had nothing to do with that, the violation of "their space" still created the terrorists.

So, in retrospect, the old Bush (unwittingly) initiated the creation of Al Qai'da. Who knows what new movement the new Bush has brought upon the US. Since he is now much more the bully/---uvula--- of the world than his dad was (in fact he was generally highly regarded) I'm afraid the response might be far worse this time. There are now much more "angry muslim places" to recruit from.
This signature is intentionally left blank

Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Good debate
« Reply #143 on: October 09, 2004, 12:15:21 pm »
Since we didn't know exactly WHAT WMD's he possessed at that time, I consider it highly suspect that you can say it wasn't the biggest.  You have to use hindsight to make that argument, and we're arguing about what was happening AT THAT TIME
"AT THAT TIME" - Everyone *thought* Iraq had WMD's.
"AT THAT TIME" - Everyone *knew* N. Korea had WMD's (and missles capable of delivering one to the western states).
I see N. Korea as the biggest threat.

Only if you believe that diplomacy has failed in NKorea.
Do you believe this?

If you judge the success of such diplomacy by whether or not the country actually aquired WMD's, then the failure of diplomacy is more apparent in N. Korea than Iraq.

No, their lack of motivation to help us had nothing to do with lack of evidence of WMDs - it had -everything- to do with their pockets being lined by Iraqi oil money.
"lack of evidence" - Here's an exercise.  You guys all be "Nations" and we'll have the FBI be the "UN".  I want everyone to call the FBI and tell them I have a martian in my pocket.  Will the FBI bust into my house and tear the place up?  Hell no, but they might send out investigators (the men in black).  Now call them and tell them TA has a martian in his pocket.  They get to TA's house and he's standing on his roof next to a martian.  Who's the biggest threat?

IMO, Bush misapplied the efforts of the US to deter other Nations from aquiring WMD's.  Right now we're tied up in Iraq.  If N. Korea gives us the finger, we can't do anything about it and they know that.  Meanwhile, they continue producing Nukes.  Kerry wants to open discussions between us and N. Korea in addition to the talks that are already going on.  IMO, this is a good thing.

fredster

  • Grand Prophet of Arcadeology
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2311
  • Last login:February 16, 2019, 04:28:53 pm
  • It's all good!
Re:Good debate
« Reply #144 on: October 09, 2004, 03:37:40 pm »
Do any of you personally know anybody that has been reamed by the Patriot act? Anybody?  Have you been personally threatened with the patriot act?

Have any of you even read the patriot act and can vouch for the details?  The devil must be in the details somewhere.

There are a lot of strange laws in the US. Many existing laws can be applied wrongly.  If the coast guard finds some dope seeds on your boat, they can take it.  Have too much cash on you when you travel? They can confiscate that too.

Read and understand this - THE UN IS USELESS. Worse, it's corrupted by bribery.  The OIL for food scandal is showing the world just how USELESS and CORRUPT it is.  

For some reason, liberals are confusing things.  That's okay, liberals aren't deep thinkers so it's the conservative's burden to tell them where they are wrong.  I'll try in walk through this slowly for those of us who have rose colored liberal glasses on. So in a simple nutshell- here's what Bush is doing to protect us-

This is a global war on Terrorists.  Al-Queda is one of many terrorist organizations that live in the world.  While there are other terrorists that are NOT muslim, the ones that are dangerous to the US is muslim.

There is a nexus of these terrorists in the Middle east. They have a vision of one world of Muslims.  Their movement has grown because of the oppressive nature of their governments.  Splinter cells of terrorists have banded together in the world and have formed a loose association, similar to organized crime in the US.

Governments like Afghanistan that were weakly controlling their own areas adopted them for various reasons.  The US declared that these governments must stop allowing these terrorists a home base.

Iraq was ran by a tyrant that killed his former leader.  He was ruthless and bold.  His country was renouned in the middle east as aggressive.  We all know what he did within his borders to control his personal empire.  IT was reasonable to assume that he would pass some of these weapons along to antagonize the US.  Remember Saddam's comments after 9/11?  

The US, the UK, and the rest of the world had information that Saddam had weapons.  Terrorists from Afghanistan came to him after the war.  We didn't know what kind of relationship he was building for sure.  We did think at the time he had some really nasty weapons.  The US was also hit with anthrax from somewhere, and we were paralized for some time.

The President went to the UN only to find our allies wanted to protect Saddam.  They did agree he had weapons, but they didn't agree to attack him unless he went out of his borders (at least that's the cover story).

The President asked congress to look at the evidence. They passed the resolution to go to war. If we hadn't gone to war, we wouldn't have known he didn't have developed weapon systems today.

It is also possible that if The President didn't go to war his detractors today would be saying he's a wimp and Saddam is a threat that must be removed.  Because we still would not be sure.

Now that we went in we have the opportunity to remove the driving force behind fundamental muslim terrorism - oppressive governments that restrict the flow of information and ideas.  It's counter to the "flat earth" view of the fundamentalists.  If we can create a democracy there, we have achieved a positive change for the world.  We have never been attacked by a democracy.

This kind of action was risky.  If Saddam indeed had weapons we'd be praising the President.

Any President faced with that Intelligence would be WRONG not to go to war with Iraq.  

John Kerry says he'd be smarter.  He said he would make sure that he had a coalition and international support and he'd fight then.

In the first gulf war the US was protecting Kuwait from Saddam, we had a UN declaration, and a huge coalition of forces.  John Kerry voted against going to war then.

I'd rather have a President who acted in our interest based on our needs before somebody like Kerry who won't take action without a poll.

We have to stop these terrorists before they get here and solve the problem for my son's generation. If not, we live in fear.







King of the Flying Monkeys from the Dark Side

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #145 on: October 09, 2004, 03:39:14 pm »
Drew you (purposefully?) misinterpret my message and then you formulate a ridiculous claim based on that misinterpretation. Why do I need to respond to that? But if you insist I'll try once more ...

I'm not against an invasion of Iraq (I never said so) and I DID say that Saddam was a threat to his people. I merely stated that going to war in the mindless way that Bush did, does much more harm than good in the long run.
explain how Sadaam being removed (which was the result of Bush going to war) does more harm than good in the long run, when you think that Sadaam was a threat to his people.  

Quote
As I said before, the previous war was the main reason planes flew into the two towers. Although Saddam or the actual war on Iraq itself had nothing to do with that, the violation of "their space" still created the terrorists.
You really and truly can't even follow your own reasoning.  Sadaam was supposed to be fighting them, giving them the beat down.  We come in, fight Sadaam, and now the terrorists are pissed AT US?  Man, how can you say that I misinterpret your words when, right THERE, it's easy as all get out to interpret your words as "If we'd have left Sadaam alone, we wouldn't have been attacked, and Sadaam would still be giving them the beat down".  Therefore, it's NOT stupid to extrapolate that theory and state that it MUST be better to put Sadaam back in power, since he was doing a good job smacking down the idiots who would attack us.  Not dynamite, but good enough that it took them over 8 years to get back at us.  

Let me see if I can understand your reasoning, before I post this.  

If we had not gone to war in Iraq the first time, we wouldn't have been attacked on 9/11.  Is that what you are saying?

I can't seem to get a grasp on what you're saying, because you (quite obviously to me, but you seem to think I'm misinterpreting you) are giving seemingly contradictory statements, but don't like me extrapolating your theories at my discretion.  So extrapolate them at YOUR discretion, so we all might clearly understand what point you're trying to make.
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #146 on: October 09, 2004, 08:00:27 pm »
"AT THAT TIME" - Everyone *thought* Iraq had WMD's.
"AT THAT TIME" - Everyone *knew* N. Korea had WMD's (and missles capable of delivering one to the western states).
I see N. Korea as the biggest threat.
You may have seen it like that, but the guy you agree with most certainly thought differently.  Bill Clinton seemed willing to believe they were only looking to get cheaper power to run all the washers, dryers, and TV's in N. Korea.  Was Clinton just a rube?  Let's see what the "horse's" mouth had to say about what was his "biggest threat concern:

"In the wake of September 11, who among us can discount the possibility that those weapons might be used against our troops or our allies in the region?  And while the administration has failed to prove any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might provide weapons of destruction to some terrorist group bent on destroying the United States? Can we really leave this to chance, when we could eliminate this deadly threat by acting now in concert with the international community, or alone if the threat is imminent -- which it is not now?  

In my view, we cannot.   The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and to expand it to include nuclear weapons.  We cannot allow him to prevail in that quest.  The weapons are an unacceptable threat.  And if the Iraqi regime refuses to allow the international community to find and destroy those weapons through a non-negotiable, immediate, unfettered and unconditional inspection process, then together with the international community, we will be justified in going to war to eliminate the threat."  Source

Please read clearly his words.  "...when we could eliminate this deadly threat by acting now in concert with the international community, or alone if the threat is imminent -- which it is not now?"

We could act alone if the threat is imminent, OR, eliminate this deadly threat by acting NOW in concert with the international community.  

If no one wants to act, we act alone if the threat is imminent, OR, act NOW with cooperation from other countries.  Now, I'm no rocket scientist, but I DO know that Britain is another country.  Australia is another country.  Poland is another country.  Spain WAS another country, as was Italy....are you seriously trying to argue that the words uttered by Kerry himself were NOT followed by Bush?  According to Kerry's own words, in what possible way can you state that he would have acted differently?  

It's all well and good to sit here and debate whether N. Korea posed a greater threat, but the man who is running against President Bush can be directly quoted as saying that he would have done exactly what Bush DID.  The man those words can be attributed to ALSO just happened to be privy to the exact same information the President had in order to make that decision.  

You may want to overlook that fact, but John Kerry had the same information, and failed to vote contrary to Bush's actions.  If he now disagrees with his own words and advice and states Bush is doing everything wrong, then he is guilty and unfit to be president.  Guilty of what, you ask?  Guilty of EITHER wanting to fight the wrong war (again, his words), OR guilty of not having enough leadership to vote against the war.  Take your pick, but he's clearly guilty.


You stated that we "thought" Iraq possessed WMD's.  Here's the condensed list of post-9/11 quotes attributed to the folks you seem to think are capable of leading our country in a time of war they now don't want to wage.  Pay close attention...each is speaking of something they know.  Check 'em out:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
   - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source


"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
   - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source


"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
   - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source


"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
   - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source


"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
   - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source


"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
   - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source


"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
   - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source


"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
   - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
   - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source


"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
   - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source
« Last Edit: October 09, 2004, 08:14:09 pm by DrewKaree »
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

GGKoul

  • Cheesecake Apprentice
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4723
  • Last login:July 23, 2019, 05:47:30 pm
  • I was once a big man!! -4700 posts later...
Re:Good debate
« Reply #147 on: October 10, 2004, 12:21:05 am »
The U.S. sends out so much foreign aid it's ridiculous...

And no one sends -us- a thing.

4 hurricanes hit Florida this summer.  Massive damage everywhere.  Last figure I heard was $28B.

How much aid did we receive from the world?

Canada sent aid in the form of money and first aid supplies.  

GGKoul

  • Cheesecake Apprentice
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4723
  • Last login:July 23, 2019, 05:47:30 pm
  • I was once a big man!! -4700 posts later...
Re:Good debate
« Reply #148 on: October 10, 2004, 12:22:26 am »
Missed the 2nd debate?  How did it go?  

Grasshopper

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2325
  • Last login:March 22, 2020, 04:35:49 pm
  • life, don't talk to me about life
Re:Good debate
« Reply #149 on: October 10, 2004, 02:28:57 pm »
Firstly, a necessary component of democracy is that the government, broadly speaking, must represent the views of the people.

Ok...  so how does that necessitate that a Theocracy cannot be a democracy, and vice versa?

Secondly, as I said earlier, democracy has to come from the people it cannot be imposed. If the majority of Americans choose a theocracy then they have by definition rejected the idea of democracy.

How so?
The people cannot choose their leaders and representatives under a theocracy?  Why not?



You posed the question - 'can a theocracy be a democracy and vice versa?'

When I originally responded, I was assuming that when you said 'theocracy' you were talking about an extreme Taliban style government. If that is the case then my answer to your question is an emphatic 'no'.

However, if you were thinking about a milder form of theocracy (does such a thing exist?) then my answer would be 'probably no'. But I'll have to ponder this interesting question a bit more.

You also said the American people would be barred from having a theocratic government, even if they voted for one. I'll have to take your word for this as I'm no expert on the US constitution.

If the people of a country want a particular form of government, are barred from having it, and instead have imposed upon them a fundamentally different form of government, then it's difficult to argue that the country in question is still a democracy.

And it's not like saying - most people voted Democrat but the Republicans got into power so America is not a democracy. The decision whether or not you want to live under a theocracy is pretty fundamental.

Also, the ability to choose a leader or representative does not automatically make a country democratic. In some former communist countries, people were allowed to choose from a selection of potential leaders. But only communist party members were allowed to put themselves forward!




If you stay for long enough and pump enough money in then there is a chance, but Bush's inept diplomacy and lack of forward planning has made the job much harder than it otherwise would have been.

Thanks, Senator Kerry.


Don't mention it. It was my pleasure to talk to you!

As you've now seen the light, can I count on your vote?

p.s. you can call me John
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." - Samuel Johnson

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #150 on: October 10, 2004, 03:37:10 pm »
The U.S. sends out so much foreign aid it's ridiculous...

And no one sends -us- a thing.

4 hurricanes hit Florida this summer.  Massive damage everywhere.  Last figure I heard was $28B.

How much aid did we receive from the world?

Canada sent aid in the form of money and first aid supplies.  
Thank you for your taxes.  
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Good debate
« Reply #151 on: October 10, 2004, 05:46:24 pm »
"Do any of you personally know anybody that has been reamed by the Patriot act? Anybody?  Have you been personally threatened with the patriot act?"

Yes, My brother-in-law's brother.  Walked out of the public library in Duluth, MN and had unmarked white cargo vans fly into the parking lot, block his car in and a pile of people jumped out.  "Who are you?  Do you have a passport?  Where are you going?  How long have you been in the country?..."  Thirty minutes of questions and made him late for work.

Why?  His looks.  His family is from India.  The thing is, he was born in Detroit, born and raised in the USA and has rented movies from that library almost every week for the past 4 years.  THAT's the "Patriot Act" in action.  They claimed to be border patrol and said they could detain him under the "Patriot" Act if he did not cooperate.  I just wonder what would have happened if he didn't have his drivers license on him.  I also wonder why the border patrol isn't patrolling the border ???

"Patriot" Act II http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/patriot2-hi.pdf, which Bush will enact - he even says so in his commercials, takes the first act even further.

"Britain is another country.  Australia is another country.  Poland is another country.  Spain WAS another country, as was Italy...."
I think everyone knows my feelings on the sham of a "coalition" Bush put together.  While the thought is nice, I don't consider the limited resources those countries (some temporarily) contribute a true "coalition" of forces.  As an example, here's the latest additions to "the coalition":
* The Kingdom of Tonga = 45 Royal Marines in early July to Iraq.
* New Zealand redeployed its contingent of 61 troops in late-September 2004.  (the New Zealand government has claimed that it had not joined the US-led force but that the deployment had been at the request of the United Nations.)
* On September 6, Armenia announced that it would deploy 50 troops to Iraq, though it was unclear when the troops would be deployed to Iraq; until such time, it is not being included in the count of countries taking part in the coalition.
Your examples:
* U.K = 12,000
* Australia = 850
* Poland = 2,500 - pulling out?
* Spain = zero - pulled out.
* Italy = 3,169
* Currently 29 Countries in Iraq.  16 have less than 200 bodies in the country.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm
To me, a coalition would require a similar investment of resources from each member.

"failed to vote contrary to Bush's actions."
The vote wasn't to "send in troops on this date".  The vote was if as a last resort troops were needed.  Where Bush and Kerry disagree is if Bush exhausted all other options and met the terms stated he would meet before deploying troops.  Both Kerry & I feel he did not.  One thing that the Bush campaign has done is cloud this fact.  Including his partial quote he is so fond of saying: "wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time".  Here is the entire quote:

Kerry (Sept 6, 2004): You've got about 500 troops here, 500 troops there, and it's American troops that are 90 percent of the combat casualties, and it's American taxpayers that are paying 90 percent of the cost of the war . . . It's the wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time.

How about the "winning the war was brilliant" bit?
I think they clearly have dropped the ball with respect to the first month in the after -- winning the war. That winning of the war was brilliant and superb, and we all applaud our troops for doing what they did, but you've got to have the capacity to provide law and order on the streets and to provide the fundamentally services, and I believe American troops will be safer and America will pay less money if we have a broader coalition involved in that, including the United Nations.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=269.html

For those of you new to this discussion:
http://www.factcheck.org/ is an excellent resource.  It is neither for or against either candidate, it only finds the flaws in each argument.  It's an easy read too, each article is about a page long.  If you're undecided, this is a must read.  If you are decided, read it anyway ;)

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #152 on: October 10, 2004, 06:52:43 pm »
Why?  His looks.  His family is from India.  The thing is, he was born in Detroit, born and raised in the USA and has rented movies from that library almost every week for the past 4 years.  THAT's the "Patriot Act" in action.  They claimed to be border patrol and said they could detain him under the "Patriot" Act if he did not cooperate.  I just wonder what would have happened if he didn't have his drivers license on him.  I also wonder why the border patrol isn't patrolling the border ???
You wonder why the border patrol isn't patrolling the border....that's a pathetically simplistic statement.  If the U.S. patrolled the border in the fashion opposite to that simplistic statement, you'd be here claiming we are living under martial law.  It's foolish, as it leaves no option by which you would be satisfied.  

Quote
I think everyone knows my feelings on the sham of a "coalition" Bush put together.
Your thoughts and feelings simply DO NOT negate the fact that we are not the only country, Bush DID act with other countries to enter into war with Sadaam, and we ARE working in concert with other countries.

Tell us what other countries you want to be there fighting with us.  These countries obviously aren't going to give as much as the country who was attacked, so tell us which other countries would make this coalition less of a "sham", in your mind?  

Quote
To me, a coalition would require a similar investment of resources from each member.
I'm going to help you out.  Your candidate stated he would form a coalition before he went to war.  You state that a coalition would require a similar investment of resources from each member.  My help is this:  Webster's New World Dictionary
co-a-li-tion - 1) a combination; union  2) a temporary alliance of political parties, nations, etc. for some specific purpose.


See, the definition of a coalition you are erroneously believing doesn't happen to jive with what the word actually MEANS.  You aren't referring to a coalition, you're referring to a commune. ::)

Quote
"failed to vote contrary to Bush's actions."
The vote wasn't to "send in troops on this date".  The vote was if as a last resort troops were needed.
again, sorry to do this to ya, but I'll show you Kerry's words....now, it may not be fair to do this, since he may have changed his position two or three times, but here:

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
   - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

He didn't vote this as a last resort, as you are erroneouly led to believe by all the bluster nowadays.  The vote was, SPECIFICALLY, a vote to give the President the authority to use force AT HIS DISCRETION, not as a last resort.  

« Last Edit: October 10, 2004, 09:58:36 pm by DrewKaree »
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Good debate
« Reply #153 on: October 10, 2004, 06:55:08 pm »
Drew you (purposefully?) misinterpret my message and then you formulate a ridiculous claim based on that misinterpretation. Why do I need to respond to that? But if you insist I'll try once more ...

I'm not against an invasion of Iraq (I never said so) and I DID say that Saddam was a threat to his people. I merely stated that going to war in the mindless way that Bush did, does much more harm than good in the long run.
explain how Sadaam being removed (which was the result of Bush going to war) does more harm than good in the long run, when you think that Sadaam was a threat to his people.  
I'm talking about more harm to the US of course. I assumed that was obvious since you claimed this war was supposed to be one that was good for the US (lessen terrorist threat). The fact that it will probably be better for the people of Iraq themselves is why I would support an invasion that was properly organized. But the essence is that if the invasion WAS properly planned then the harm to the US could have been largely prevented (although some harm will always come from a war).

Quote
Quote
As I said before, the previous war was the main reason planes flew into the two towers. Although Saddam or the actual war on Iraq itself had nothing to do with that, the violation of "their space" still created the terrorists.
You really and truly can't even follow your own reasoning.  Sadaam was supposed to be fighting them, giving them the beat down.  We come in, fight Sadaam, and now the terrorists are pissed AT US?
There are many reasons for it, but yes they are pissed at the US.

Quote
Man, how can you say that I misinterpret your words when, right THERE, it's easy as all get out to interpret your words as "If we'd have left Sadaam alone, we wouldn't have been attacked, and Sadaam would still be giving them the beat down".  Therefore, it's NOT stupid to extrapolate that theory and state that it MUST be better to put Sadaam back in power, since he was doing a good job smacking down the idiots who would attack us.  Not dynamite, but good enough that it took them over 8 years to get back at us.  
You cannot reverse the damage that has already been done. You can't put the pin back in a grenade that already went off.

Anyway, there are two scenarios for Iraq now. Either it gets a US friendly government and it thereby denies the Shia muslims their majority ruling. Thus they get angry and fuel the terrorist movement. Or Iraq becomes a Shia muslim state (like Iran) and thus fuel the terrorist movement.

Quote
Let me see if I can understand your reasoning, before I post this.  

If we had not gone to war in Iraq the first time, we wouldn't have been attacked on 9/11.  Is that what you are saying?
Yes. Did you ever understand why Bin Laden ordered those attacks on the US?

I'm not saying that the first war shouldn't have been fought (obviously that one had to be fought and it was organized well), but to show that in that region of the world violence tends to get answered with more violence (even when you fight a war that the whole world sees as a good war). Especially when you are dealing with religious fanatics. These people take offense if you ask their wife a question and they go hysterical if you enter certain cities.

Quote
I can't seem to get a grasp on what you're saying, because you (quite obviously to me, but you seem to think I'm misinterpreting you) are giving seemingly contradictory statements, but don't like me extrapolating your theories at my discretion.  So extrapolate them at YOUR discretion, so we all might clearly understand what point you're trying to make.
You just have to read it better (and remember that the reverse of a statement does not always automatically hold)

I guess you have the same problems with me as Bush does with Kerry. It's hard for someone who only thinks in black and white to understand someone who talks about there also being shades of grey.

I saw a nice instance of this in the second debate (yeah I actually watched some of that). Bush said Kerry didn't vote for some law and insisted that that meant Kerry was against it. Kerry said he would be in favor of a similar law but only if slightly amended to allow an exception in special cases. So he voted against that specific law, but he was not against it in general. Bush didn't grasp that concept either and even repeated the "if your not for it your against it" dogma. Kerry just smiled at so much stupidity.
This signature is intentionally left blank

patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Good debate
« Reply #154 on: October 10, 2004, 06:59:50 pm »
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
   - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

He didn't vote this as a last resort, as you are erroneouly led to believe by all the bluster nowadays.  The vote was, SPECIFICALLY, a vote to give the President the authority to use force AT HIS DISCRETION, not as a last resort.  
Doesn't "if necessary" imply "only as a last resort"?
This signature is intentionally left blank

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #155 on: October 10, 2004, 07:17:52 pm »
One thing that the Bush campaign has done is cloud this fact.  Including his partial quote he is so fond of saying: "wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time".  Here is the entire quote:

Kerry (Sept 6, 2004): You've got about 500 troops here, 500 troops there, and it's American troops that are 90 percent of the combat casualties, and it's American taxpayers that are paying 90 percent of the cost of the war . . . It's the wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time.
how do you reconcile him saying we needed to go after Sadaam, this WHILE we were in Afghanistan, this WHILE following everything Kerry said he would do before going to war?  If you wish, I'll give you quotes to back this up.  He is stating it is the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time....perhaps he should have chosen not to show up to vote for the war, shut his mouth regarding going to war, and never served on the Senate Intelligence Committee.  If he had not done those three things, wrong war, wrong place, wrong time would be an invalid argument.


Quote
And I believe American troops will be safer and America will pay less money if we have a broader coalition involved in that, including the United Nations.
So to follow Kerry's words, (and hey, whaddaya know, he doesn't specify a coalition as you do, Cooter!) we should have more countries involved.  Which ones, specifically, and Cooter, who do you think we should have?  Which part of the U.N. should we have?  The corrupted countries?  The ones with dictators leading their respective countries?  The ones who agree with us?  Oh wait, they're already there.  They saw the folly of the U.N.'s decision to continue resolution after resolution.

Your article http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=269.html

states that "When Kerry called Iraq "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time" he was once again criticizing Bush for failing to get more international support before invading Iraq".  

Again I ask Kerry and Cooter...."Cootery"?  ;)  what does more international support involve?  Coalition doesn't equal identical sacrifice, so what does international support mean?  More countries?  Which ones?  Blech-menistan?  Who-gives-a-crap-istan? (more commonly known as France)

We needed people who were willing to send troops of any number.  France could have sent troops to Iraq to teach the terrorists how to surrender effectively, but as we can all see, they view this as a fight to the death, not something to give up.
Quote
« Last Edit: October 10, 2004, 08:00:29 pm by DrewKaree »
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

fredster

  • Grand Prophet of Arcadeology
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2311
  • Last login:February 16, 2019, 04:28:53 pm
  • It's all good!
Re:Good debate
« Reply #156 on: October 10, 2004, 07:42:24 pm »
Crazy Cooter
You said:
Quote
Yes, My brother-in-law's brother.  Walked out of the public library in Duluth, MN and had unmarked white cargo vans fly into the parking lot, block his car in and a pile of people jumped out.  "Who are you?  Do you have a passport?  Where are you going?  How long have you been in the country?..."  Thirty minutes of questions and made him late for work.
/quote]

Exactly how does that relate to the patriot act?  I have had that happen to me when I was hanging out in a car in a parking lot when I was 19.

Did they put him in Jail or was he just late?  What civil rights did he loose? Answer: none.  They system worked.  How many times have you been pulled over? This guy didn't even get a ticket. I'm glad they have people in the white vans. That's a good thing man.  A very good thing.

As far as the coalition, how many coalition forces were present in Afgahnistan and the Gulf War 1?

Do people forget we actually have the largest Army in the world and the US is by far the most powerful country in the world?  Those 200 soldiers from spain probably represented 25% of their Army.

And as a general note, the war on terror isn't over if Al-Queda is totally destroyed either. Bush pointed this out in his speech after 9/11 and every opportunity since.  It's simplistic to say that we are after one man, although I'm sure we'd like to have him, dead if possible.  

There are all those nasty cells in palestine and these freelancers too that we really need to kill. Not capture, kill.

Will Kerry do that? No.

When Saddam invaded Kuwait we had a strong coalition, we had a UN resolution, and we had a valid security risk (because of the oil) to go to war with Iraq .  Kerry voted against it.  It was on a silver platter, and he voted against it.
But maybe he voted for it first?




King of the Flying Monkeys from the Dark Side

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Good debate
« Reply #157 on: October 10, 2004, 07:54:57 pm »
However, if you were thinking about a milder form of theocracy (does such a thing exist?) then my answer would be 'probably no'. But I'll have to ponder this interesting question a bit more.

the

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #158 on: October 10, 2004, 08:00:11 pm »
Doesn't "if necessary" imply "only as a last resort"?
to you, it does, because that's what you want it to mean.  

How would you go about defining what is and isn't necessary?  If we think Sadaam is working to hide his weapons, and we don't act NOW, that could be necessary.  

"as a last resort" means to continue to talk to him, craft resolution after resolution after resolution, under the misduided notion that Sadaam comply.  If, after the millionth resolution, which finally said "we will bomb you if you don't comply", he did not comply, then I would consider THAT to be "the last resort".

No, it definitely DOES NOT imply "as a last resort".  You know what DOES imply "as a last resort"?  Using the words "as a last resort".  Not today, when it's politically expedient, but when he made the statement.  Period.  

The words Kerry used WERE masterful in that they could be used in whatever fashion he needed them to be when the election came.

patrickl, Kerry made a choice when putting those words in the air.  He could make a forceful statement...some might say LEAD, and remove all doubt and "misuse" of his words.  He instead chose to use vacuous words to hide behind, trying to stand on the premise that he is for the war, when his actions, his words, his advice...all of them line up exactly with what Bush has, in fact, DONE.  

Bush never implied anything.  Open up, or we're comin' in.  Leaders lead, leaders state fact, leaders act on their words.

Leaders DON'T imply.
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Good debate
« Reply #159 on: October 10, 2004, 08:03:04 pm »
To me, a coalition would require a similar investment of resources from each member.

Then the US has never been a member of a coalition.

Can you name a post-WW2 conflict where the US id not take the vasy majority of the "allied" casualties, paid the vast majority of the cost, and provided the vast majority of the force?  

We ALWAYS carry most of the load.  Always.

That you (and Kerry) demean other countries for their efforts is sure to be remembered by them - calling them "bribed and coerced" is certainly a way to win their hearts.

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #160 on: October 10, 2004, 08:23:49 pm »
Yes. Did you ever understand why Bin Laden ordered those attacks on the US?
Yes.  He disliked America and everything it represented.  We were an unholy nation living in our own filth, and helping to spread that corruption to the rest of the world.  His interpretation of his religion and its tenets led him to believe he needed to wage war against the unbelievers, to smite them for their indiscretions, and that, at all costs, it must be done.

Of course, that's my interpretation of it, and I'll state it's an interpretation.  Unless you're Osama, you come off sounding pretentious due to your "ability" to speak for him and his reasons for why he would wage a war in which he was so clearly outnumbered.

I'll wait for Osama to speak for himself, if he's still alive.


You at least seem to partially understand what I'm saying.  

"Especially when you are dealing with religious fanatics. These people take offense if you ask their wife a question and they go hysterical if you enter certain cities."

We seem to differ about why, though.  You see it as "we stepped on a ceremonial rug" or some such.  I view it as stated above.  I'd have to think we somehow stepped in a pile of crap the last time we dealt with bin Laden....remember.....when we were helping him fight the Russians.

Were we attacked on 9/11 because we gave them bad advice against the Russians too?  That's a hell of a grudge, but I don't view the 9/11 attack as being due to him holding a grudge.  You don't try to blow up the building a few years earlier, and then regroup and try it again because someone crapped in a sacred plate used in their religious ceremonies....well, let me revise that.  You don't do that, and get hundreds to follow you, get thousands to agree with you.  It's NOT that simple.  

You're having a hard time seeing...perhaps on the new pair, don't have them tint the lenses in your glasses that lovely shade of rose.
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

saint

  • turned to the Dark Side
  • Supreme Chancellor
  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6068
  • Last login:March 27, 2020, 04:12:21 pm
  • I only work in cyberspace...
    • Build Your Own Arcade Controls
Re:Good debate
« Reply #161 on: October 10, 2004, 08:52:12 pm »
I try to stay out of these... I really do... But when I see a reply like this my mind boggles. I mean it just freaking boggles. Drew, I have a lot of respect for you regardless of whether or not we have the same political ideals, but man I have to take you to task for this one...

Why?  His looks.  His family is from India.  The thing is, he was born in Detroit, born and raised in the USA and has rented movies from that library almost every week for the past 4 years.  THAT's the "Patriot Act" in action.  They claimed to be border patrol and said they could detain him under the "Patriot" Act if he did not cooperate.  I just wonder what would have happened if he didn't have his drivers license on him.  I also wonder why the border patrol isn't patrolling the border ???

I don't know how to break this to you, but the "looks" of people have everything to do with who we investigate.  Should we ignore all who share the "looks" of those who attacked us, or stop grandma and her grandson to see if they have bombs in their Depends and Pampers?  The rest of your "background" you gave us...how would they go about getting that information without stopping him?  

You wonder why the border patrol isn't patrolling the border....that's a pathetically simplistic statement.  If the U.S. patrolled the border in the fashion opposite to that simplistic statement, you'd be here claiming we are living under martial law.  It's foolish, as it leaves no option by which you would be satisfied.  I'm sorry your BIL's brother was half an hour late to work.  I'm not sorry they found it necessary to act in such a fashion.  Perhaps if they had just come to work and taken him downtown for questioning, you'd be more satisfied with that.

Oh my God. Do you even know what you just advocated? No where in the original posting or your reply did anyone mention *WHY* this man was under suspicion, other than his race. This man is an American born citizen! You know, America, where one of our principles is freedom from unfounded search, seizure, and detention? Are you really saying that for no other reason than he's descended from immigrants that he should be stopped and interrogated? You asked: 'The rest of your "background" you gave us...how would they go about getting that information without stopping him?'  What you should be asking is 'Why were they stopping him if they didn't already have other information about him?' He was walking out of a library! Senator. McArthy, the Red Scare is over!

Now, if there was some other reason that brought this man to the authorities' attention, fine. I recognize we're under attack, I don't mind reasonable scrutiny -- but there's *nothing* in this discussion so far about anything other than his looks, including in your reply and defense of the action. He wasn't entering our country, there's no mention of criminal or suspicious activity, or anything other than that he was in a public library. Perhaps there was something he had done to warrant scrutiny -- but it wasn't presented in this discussion, and you jumped to defend the actions without needing any evidence of wrong doing whatsoever.... other than his looks. Holy cow.  How frigging scary.

I honestly don't believe you meant to advocate that anyone who isn't a certain race should automatically be subject to random interrogations. I certainly hope you didn't. Entering the country? Fine, profile as needed to protect our country -- but don't forget relying on only profiling will ultimately fail us. Engaging in criminal activity? Fine, investigate further. Buying a truck load of fertilizer? Sure, take a look at why. Walking out of a library? Um....

---------------------------

Quote
Quote
I think everyone knows my feelings on the sham of a "coalition" Bush put together.

whatever your thoughts and feelings are of the coalition that volunteered to join us, please post them here.  I will work my darndest to get your "feelings" and "thoughts" to the families of the people from those other countries who were killed.  People DIED - they DIED, man - fighting side by side with U.S. Soldiers.  They weren't stopped for a bit of time, making them late for work.  They DIED.  It sickens me to think that people from another country died fighting for OUR cause, and all you see is that those countries aren't giving enough.  

There is simply no way to take your comments, other than that you wish there were just as many people from other countries killed as there were from the U.S.

Bunk. Bunk and balderdash. Shame on you. It is entirely possible to believe that other countries are not providing any more than a token contribution, while at the same time honoring and respecting the individuals from those countries who paid the ultimate price. I don't claim to speak for the original poster, and I'm not weighing in on whether or not other countries did provide a reasonable contribution of resources based upon their ability to do so, but it is certainly possible to take his comments as meaning that they did not (and that's how I read it). To state as irrefutable fact that he wishes more people had died is disengenious at best, and something you should be ashamed of at worst.That's not debating to try to see one another's perspective or to persuade others that your perspective is correct, that's debating to win points. Feh.

--- saint
--- John St.Clair
     Build Your Own Arcade Controls FAQ
     http://www.arcadecontrols.com/
     Project Arcade 2!
     http://www.projectarcade2.com/
     saint@arcadecontrols.com

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #162 on: October 10, 2004, 09:47:23 pm »
I try to stay out of these... I really do... But when I see a reply like this my mind boggles. I mean it just freaking boggles. Drew, I have a lot of respect for you regardless of whether or not we have the same political ideals, but man I have to take you to task for this one...
I'm ok with that.  After reading your reply, I have to say that you made good points and made me realize I inferred far more from his post than what was there.

Quote
No where in the original posting or your reply did anyone mention *WHY* this man was under suspicion, other than his race.
I took the "unmarked white cargo vans fly into the parking lot, block his car in and a pile of people jumped out" to mean they didn't just randomly pick him out, he was under some sort of investigation.  

Quote
You asked: 'The rest of your "background" you gave us...how would they go about getting that information without stopping him?'  What you should be asking is 'Why were they stopping him if they didn't already have other information about him?' He was walking out of a library!
I looked at the "unmarked white vans and pile of people" as if he was identified as someone he, in fact, was not.  The questioning seemed logical to me: get him to give as much information while he's still stunned that this is going on, perhaps slip up and forget a pat story.  

I think he fit the description of someone they were looking for, although Cooter did not mention that.  I injected my opinion when the information given didn't support it.

Quote
I recognize we're under attack, I don't mind reasonable scrutiny -- but there's *nothing* in this discussion so far about anything other than his looks, including in your reply and defense of the action. He wasn't entering our country, there's no mention of criminal or suspicious activity, or anything other than that he was in a public library. Perhaps there was something he had done to warrant scrutiny -- but it wasn't presented in this discussion, and you jumped to defend the actions without needing any evidence of wrong doing whatsoever.... other than his looks. Holy cow.  How frigging scary.
you are correct in your presentation.  Your assessment/opinion is equally correct.

Quote
I honestly don't believe you meant to advocate that anyone who isn't a certain race should automatically be subject to random interrogations. I certainly hope you didn't.
I offer my apologies to the readers.  Indeed I don't feel random interrogations are warranted.  

I believe if the person in question fits the description of someone the authorities are looking for, it is warranted, but as far as I am able to discern after re-reading it, there is nothing given in this instance to lead me to believe this is the case.

Quote
Entering the country? Fine, profile as needed to protect our country -- but don't forget relying on only profiling will ultimately fail us. Engaging in criminal activity? Fine, investigate further. Buying a truck load of fertilizer? Sure, take a look at why. Walking out of a library? Um....
simply walking out of a library and no other reason other than the color of a person's skin does not make someone the valid target of investigation/interrogation.

Quote
Bunk. Bunk and balderdash. Shame on you. It is entirely possible to believe that other countries are not providing any more than a token contribution, while at the same time honoring and respecting the individuals from those countries who paid the ultimate price. I don't claim to speak for the original poster, and I'm not weighing in on whether or not other countries did provide a reasonable contribution of resources based upon their ability to do so, but it is certainly possible to take his comments as meaning that they did not (and that's how I read it). To state as irrefutable fact that he wishes more people had died is disengenious at best, and something you should be ashamed of at worst.That's not debating to try to see one another's perspective or to persuade others that your perspective is correct, that's debating to win points. Feh.
You're right.  It was putting words in his mouth he did not say, and an argument I needn't have resorted to trying t start.  I've removed the comments, because you are correct, and I am guilty as charged.  I am chagrined to have it pointed out to me (and rightly so) that I stooped to such a level and didn't have enough sense in the moment to see it myself, before the damage was done.

I offer my apologies to Crazy Cooter and ask his forgiveness.
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

saint

  • turned to the Dark Side
  • Supreme Chancellor
  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6068
  • Last login:March 27, 2020, 04:12:21 pm
  • I only work in cyberspace...
    • Build Your Own Arcade Controls
Re:Good debate
« Reply #163 on: October 10, 2004, 10:15:31 pm »
Uh..... You took the wind out of my sails...

* saint looks around for a diversion...

How about them Braves!? :)

--- John St.Clair
     Build Your Own Arcade Controls FAQ
     http://www.arcadecontrols.com/
     Project Arcade 2!
     http://www.projectarcade2.com/
     saint@arcadecontrols.com

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #164 on: October 10, 2004, 10:36:50 pm »
Uh..... You took the wind out of my sails...

* saint looks around for a diversion...

How about them Braves!? :)


Um....the Braves still suck.
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Good debate
« Reply #165 on: October 10, 2004, 10:50:09 pm »
Drew, listen to yourself:
"I don't know how to break this to you, but the "looks" of people have everything to do with who we investigate."
and then:
"...fighting for OUR cause"
Is stopping people, questioning them, and threatening them for no reason OUR cause?  It's not mine.

Fredster:  He didn't do anything.  They told him they could detain him under the "Patriot" Act if he didn't answer their questions.  And yes, he was "just late".  Of course he wasn't paid for that lost time.  But if you and Drew feel safer because someone was stopped and threatened to be held indefinately simply because of how he looks, I guess all is well.  Maybe you'd feel better if they were somehow branded once their documents were checked?>:(

Anyhow,
Let me try to explain my stance on the "coalition" like this:
It's a dangerous situation.  People die.  I accept that.  Do i think we should cap Brit everytime one of our boys go down?  No.  That's ridiculous.  IMO, it's just as ridiculous to stand around and say you have all this support from all these countries when there is no real support.  For example:  It would be a real drag if Norway lost one of their guys.  But look at the numbers: they have 10 (ten) people in Iraq.  Is that real support?  No.  Plain and simple it's not.  It's like bringing a knife to a gunfight.  You can't tell me that Norway is in such a threatened position that they couldn't send more.  This is no attempt to belittle the efforts of those 10 individuals.  It is aimed at their government and ours.  Bush says we have all this support.  Yeah right, how many stay when things get tough?  How many came in after we said you had to be in the coalition or you couldn't get any work there afterwards?  It's getting pretty hard to not look at this situation badly.  It's like Bush wags this "prize" of having a presence in (hopefully) a newly created democratic nation but you have to "show your support" by sending some bodies over to fight.  Then he claims it "support".  Is Norway supporting the views of President Bush or are they after the "prize"?  That's a question we have to ask ourselves.  I wish I could find some info on the % of each countries military they have in Iraq.  Maybe Norway only has 10 soldiers.  Right?

And I'm far from needing a soapbox lecture about how important life is or how bad a family can hurt because someone is killed/wounded in the military (or elsewhere for that matter).

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #166 on: October 11, 2004, 12:19:54 am »
Drew, listen to yourself:
"I don't know how to break this to you, but the "looks" of people have everything to do with who we investigate."
and then:
"...fighting for OUR cause"
Is stopping people, questioning them, and threatening them for no reason OUR cause?  It's not mine.
the two positions I posted were not about trying to further reasonable dialogue.  Please see the post responding to those two positions, Cooter.


The fight in Iraq, and the fight against terrorism IS "our" cause.  It is primarily our cause because, when attacked, WE, the U.S., made it our policy to hunt down and eliminate terror whenever and wherever possible.

While other countries may show support for us, as you point out, their support isn't close to ours, and most likely WON'T be close, until they are attacked.  At that point, they will need to make a choice.  Boost their support, or turn tail and run.  Some have turned tail and run.  Others have sent help.  

The coalition we formed are countries who feel the need to send help.  That any country sent help at all is a sign that we are NOT, as Kerry is fond of saying, "going it alone".  Can other countries send a proportionately larger show of "support"?  Sure they can.  Will they?  Remains to be seen.  Your opinion is that we have no support.  The fact is, we do.  I don't know what else to tell you.  We have other countries there helping us.  That is support.  That you don't agree that we should be shouldering the brunt of the work/cost/casualties is an entirely different argument, and one that IS factual, but to state that we have no support is simply untrue.

If I am a millionaire, and you are flat broke living on the street, I come upon you and give you a thousand dollars, you are not broke.  Could I have given you more?  Certainly.  But it doesn't change the fact that you are not now flat broke.

One million troops are in Iraq (lets use easy to figure numbers).  Those are all the troops we can send there.  One day, we have one million one thousand troops.  We didn't provide them.  Where did they come from?  Are they working for the same cause the U.S. military is?  They may be bringing knives to a gunfight, but terrorists can still be dealt with by those "knives".

Support, no matter what the quantity, will not be extended when the man who wants to take over denigrates the "unbalanced" nature of the "little" support we are now getting.

If the millionaire (other countries) gives the broke man (Bush) that thousand bucks, and the broke man's buddy (Kerry) says "That's not enough, we should be getting more", the millionaire's buddies aren't going to be jumping to help throw more money at the guy.  

Quote
And I'm far from needing a soapbox lecture about how important life is or how bad a family can hurt because someone is killed/wounded in the military (or elsewhere for that matter).
Dunno if I did that, but it's possible.  Point taken.  Again, please see a few posts above.
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Good debate
« Reply #167 on: October 11, 2004, 05:44:06 am »
Yes. Did you ever understand why Bin Laden ordered those attacks on the US?
Yes.  He disliked America and everything it represented.  We were an unholy nation living in our own filth, and helping to spread that corruption to the rest of the world.  His interpretation of his religion and its tenets led him to believe he needed to wage war against the unbelievers, to smite them for their indiscretions, and that, at all costs, it must be done.

Of course, that's my interpretation of it, and I'll state it's an interpretation.  Unless you're Osama, you come off sounding pretentious due to your "ability" to speak for him and his reasons for why he would wage a war in which he was so clearly outnumbered.

I'll wait for Osama to speak for himself, if he's still alive.
Well it's easy to speak for him if I only need to repeat what he already said it in public. According to him the biggest factor was that the US stationed troops in Saudia Arabia during and after DS1.
This signature is intentionally left blank

fredster

  • Grand Prophet of Arcadeology
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2311
  • Last login:February 16, 2019, 04:28:53 pm
  • It's all good!
Re:Good debate
« Reply #168 on: October 11, 2004, 10:34:07 am »
Cooter,

He didn't get arrested did he?  Things like that happen.  I have a friend, a very big friend, who was back from a concert. He was wearing a bandana and walked down the street from my house to get a pizza.  20 minutes later the cops brought him to my door and asked if I knew this man.  He was out late.  They told him they would arrest him for something, anything. It happens all the time.  Cops are looking for people who look out of place, it's their job. (I have more examples similar to that)

In both cases, no arrests. The system worked.  Watch where you go and what you do, if you are out of place, then you can suffer the same thing.  It's been like that forever whether you knew that or not.  The Patriot act has some things I don't agree with in it also, but as far as we have seen, only a handful of people have been nailed by it.

What's the alternative ?  Let everybody be free and hope for the best? Come On, that's not an option if you want to make sure we are safe. Otherwise you can rest assured, they will take advantage of a weakness like that.   It is a weakness in this time.  

Israel has been doing these things for years. They have to in order to survive.  

I get so upset when people start dishing the "coalition".  How many troops ever assisted us in either of these wars?  But what gets me the most is how people think that Bush has done this for some personal vendetta.  

It's so childish to believe that. I mean it shows a simplistic view of the government and the world.  Bush wants to stop the terrorists by going at the heart of them and dismantling them.  

No other country has done that.  No one can.  We are the leader of the free world.  It's up to the leader to set the tone and make the moves.  Leaders get critisised all the time.  Anytime a decision is made at this level, it's always torn apart by the people who either don't understand it, don't like the boss ,or believed  the opposite.  The international community is the same way.

Bush stood up and did what he believes the US should do to address this problem.  He will have naysayers either way.

No one has given a better alternative or solution.  They just say what Bush has done is bad without offering a realistic approach.  Sending in the UN has no way of working.  It never has.

We needed something that will work.  Apparently, it has. Now we need Bush in to continue the job and let Kerry have his time to vote against it and do his job in the Senate.  After all, he voted for all the policies that Bush put into play.

King of the Flying Monkeys from the Dark Side

Grasshopper

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2325
  • Last login:March 22, 2020, 04:35:49 pm
  • life, don't talk to me about life
Re:Good debate
« Reply #169 on: October 11, 2004, 03:03:14 pm »
However, if you were thinking about a milder form of theocracy (does such a thing exist?) then my answer would be 'probably no'. But I'll have to ponder this interesting question a bit more.

the
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." - Samuel Johnson

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Good debate
« Reply #170 on: October 11, 2004, 03:16:45 pm »
De`moc

Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Good debate
« Reply #171 on: October 11, 2004, 04:52:05 pm »
Drew, no problem.  I hadn't seen your other response because it took me awhile to formulate my thoughts and I underwent quite a few revisions. ;)  I totally agree that if he matched a description of some one they were looking for he should have been stopped.  But they never said this.  All they did was threaten him with the "Patriot" Act if he didn't comply with their requests.  Shouldn't they have threatened him with obstructing justice or something?  Instead he was a terrorist until proven otherwise.  That's why I say it's all a witch-hunt.

Fredster,  I've been stopped and questioned before real late at night by the police (some good stories there  ;))and I agree that is their job.  The problem is this:  What is "out of place" when someone returns a kids video to the library?

"What's the alternative ?  Let everybody be free and hope for the best?"
Absolutely.  I couldn't have said it better.  That is what America is all about.  Giving people freedom, not taking it away.  There is a price for freedom.  I asked a few people what they thought about this:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
"I know not what course others may take but as for me: give me liberty or give me death." -- Patrick Henry
"Better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees." -- Emiliano Zapata, 1910, Dolores Ibarruri, 1936, Albert Camus, 1951, Joseph Heller, 1961, Mordechai Anielewicz,1943, Warsaw Ghetto, Poland
"If men use their liberty in such a way as to surrender their liberty, are they thereafter any the less slaves? If people by a plebiscite elect a man despot over them, do they remain free because the despotism was of their own making?" -- Herbert Spencer, The New Toryism, 1884
Despot: One who rules regardless of a constitution or laws.

"Bush wants to stop the terrorists by going at the heart of them and dismantling them."
You're confusing The war on terror with the war in Iraq.

"Anytime a decision is made at this level, it's always torn apart by the people who either don't understand it, don't like the boss ,or believed  the opposite."
Or the boss is plain wrong.  But no matter what, only trouble comes when the boss is in over his head and won't accept help.  Other countries have offered help in rebuilding Iraq and Bush has pushed them away because they aren't fighting.  What sense does that make?  Isn't Bush demeaning the efforts of those countries?  What did he tell the UN? "Asked whether the exclusion of those countries from bidding on construction contracts violates international law, Bush said, "I don't know what you're talking about by international law. I better consult my lawyer." ".http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/11/sprj.irq.contracts/(older article)
Great leader right there folks.  Bush won't accept anything unless the say they support the coalition.  I thought the idea was to free Iraq?  Instead he'd rather extend the rebuilding process because he's stubborn.  What kind of example is that?  Isn't accepting this help a "better alternative" and a more "realistic approach"?  I don't see how this policy in ANY way benefits Iraq.  Here's how I see it:
Hypothetical Bush Quote: "I offer you riches beyond your wildest dreams... all you have to do is say I'm right, offer a small force of troops, and you too can collect the post war proceeds".  Then, once they realize it's actually a dangerous situation, they start to bail.  To me, somebody somewhere misspelled "coercion" as "coalition".

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #172 on: October 11, 2004, 05:34:10 pm »
NP, I go through the revision process like that too  :)

I don't believe that Bush is wrong for excluding help from other countries, and specifically, France, Germany, and Russia.  Those countries were violating sanctions and using the people of Iraq, and when it came time to remove the dictator at the helm, those countries acted, not to help the people of Iraq, but to continue to line their pockets and profit off the misfortune of the Iraqi people.  

In my mind, those countries, specifically, should NEVER get a chance to profit through rebuilding contracts.  It's double-dipping to benefit themselves, and screwing the people they now claim they want to help.

If you believe that the U.S. is shouldering the burden of the war, and that the countries who are there giving us however weak a show of support you think it is, then how do you think that it's just that a country who was unwilling to give even the "limited" support you decry should now profit from the Iraqi people they didn't care to help free in the first place?

The countries you say aren't giving an equal measure of support should benefit from at least having the fortitude to send SOME support.  

Also, the Iraqi people, in working to rebuild their own country, are then invested in the process, helping to rebuild not only their country, but their economy, bringing a sense of self worth to their efforts.  Their hard work now will not go towards building bigger palaces for Sadaam, buying solid gold faucets for his bathrooms, and crystal chandeliers for a dictator that ruled so brutally over them.  Now their work will go towards improving their houses, improving their standard of living, improving whatever they wish, as they now get to reap the benefits of their hard work.

Time and again, the Iraqi people are forgotten, almost as if they're the retarded child sitting in the corner who never says anything.  The Iraqi people are slowly becoming responsible and TAKING the responsibilty of running their country and putting things in order again.  
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

Dartful Dodger

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3488
  • Last login:July 23, 2012, 11:21:39 pm
  • Newer isn't always better.
Re:Good debate
« Reply #173 on: October 11, 2004, 05:38:20 pm »
I thought the idea was to free Iraq?

The idea is to stop another 3,000 innocent Americans from being killed.


Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Good debate
« Reply #174 on: October 11, 2004, 07:07:22 pm »
"a country who was unwilling to give even the "limited" support you decry should now profit from the Iraqi people they didn't care to help free in the first place?"
Because the list just doesn't make sense.  Examples:
* On List - Turkey - refused to let us use their airbases.
* Off List - Germany - let us use their airbases to stage attacks.
* Off List - Canada - contributed millions to Iraq and has troops in Afganistan.
* Off List - France - allowed use of their airspace.

If you spoke out against Bush at the UN, you're off the list.  Unless you recant now and send in troops.  So this brings to question, did those countries that sent in a handful of troops actually support our action as claimed by Bush?  Or did the do it so they could claim "the prize"?

"The idea is to stop another 3,000 innocent Americans from being killed."
Don't confuse the war on terror with the war in Iraq.  There are similarities but they are not the same.

shmokes

  • Just think of all the suffering in this world that could have been avoided had I just been a little better informed. :)
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10471
  • Last login:September 24, 2016, 06:50:42 pm
  • Don't tread on me.
    • Jake Moses
Re:Good debate
« Reply #175 on: October 11, 2004, 07:37:44 pm »
I thought the idea was to free Iraq?

The idea is to stop another 3,000 innocent Americans from being killed.



Well...you're already down 1000 and the death toll in Iraq is ticking away.  
Check out my website for in-depth reviews of children's books, games, and educational apps for the iPad:

Best Kid iPad Apps

Dartful Dodger

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3488
  • Last login:July 23, 2012, 11:21:39 pm
  • Newer isn't always better.
Re:Good debate
« Reply #176 on: October 11, 2004, 08:06:38 pm »
Don't confuse the war on terror with the war in Iraq.  There are similarities but they are not the same.

If you think Iraq had nothing to do with the 3,000 people that died in the World Trade Center, then you are confused.

America is safer without Sadam, so it is the same.

patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Good debate
« Reply #177 on: October 11, 2004, 08:24:30 pm »
Don't confuse the war on terror with the war in Iraq.  There are similarities but they are not the same.

If you think Iraq had nothing to do with the 3,000 people that died in the World Trade Center, then you are confused.

America is safer without Sadam, so it is the same.
Wrong on both counts. There is no link between Saddam and 9/11 and Americans (military and civilian) have been dying at an alarming rate.

If anything made the US safer then it's the attack on Afghanistan. I don't see how you could imagine a positive influence of the attack on Iraq for the US.

You need to have some proof that Saddam was involved with the world Trade center attack. Simply stating that there is no proof he was not involved does not count. Besides Bin Laden was pretty clear in his explanation for these attacks.

This signature is intentionally left blank

Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Good debate
« Reply #178 on: October 11, 2004, 08:36:03 pm »
America would be safer if many of the current leaders around the world were removed.  That doesn't pool them in with terrorism though.

Dartful Dodger

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3488
  • Last login:July 23, 2012, 11:21:39 pm
  • Newer isn't always better.
Re:Good debate
« Reply #179 on: October 11, 2004, 09:13:14 pm »
America would be safer if many of the current leaders around the world were removed.  That doesn't pool them in with terrorism though.
...and after seeing what we did to Sadam, they wont pool with them.

Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Good debate
« Reply #180 on: October 11, 2004, 09:48:00 pm »
I'd say the inverse is true.  Saddam was a single guy with a rough country and he got a beatdown.  Terrorists strike and hide.  Which is more "effective"?

Couple guys, couple planes = heavy casualties to the "enemy".
Waiting in your own country = heavy casualties to yourself.

I'm no military expert but of the two, which technique seems to work?  Does this mean we should cower in fear?  No.  Does this mean we should become a police state?  No.  I've been in the mood for quotations today:

Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Good debate
« Reply #181 on: October 11, 2004, 11:09:41 pm »
OK folks, this one is a straight rip on Bush.  Maybe someone can find some answers/explanations?

Some stuff Saddam did have.  Where is it now?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6228800/

This is only a clip, more available by following the link:
"Satellite imagery shows that entire buildings in Iraq have been dismantled. They once housed high-precision equipment that could help a government or a terrorist group make nuclear bombs, the International Atomic Energy Agency said in a report to the U.N. Security Council.

The equipment
« Last Edit: October 11, 2004, 11:17:52 pm by Crazy Cooter »

shmokes

  • Just think of all the suffering in this world that could have been avoided had I just been a little better informed. :)
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10471
  • Last login:September 24, 2016, 06:50:42 pm
  • Don't tread on me.
    • Jake Moses
Re:Good debate
« Reply #182 on: October 11, 2004, 11:24:57 pm »
America would be safer if many of the current leaders around the world were removed.  That doesn't pool them in with terrorism though.
...and after seeing what we did to Sadam, they wont pool with them.

Wow...Dartful.  Brilliant.  Who knew it was so easy?
Check out my website for in-depth reviews of children's books, games, and educational apps for the iPad:

Best Kid iPad Apps

GGKoul

  • Cheesecake Apprentice
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4723
  • Last login:July 23, 2019, 05:47:30 pm
  • I was once a big man!! -4700 posts later...
Re:Good debate
« Reply #183 on: October 11, 2004, 11:47:00 pm »
I can't wait until Nov 3, 2004.. the day after election day...

shmokes

  • Just think of all the suffering in this world that could have been avoided had I just been a little better informed. :)
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10471
  • Last login:September 24, 2016, 06:50:42 pm
  • Don't tread on me.
    • Jake Moses
Re:Good debate
« Reply #184 on: October 12, 2004, 01:00:40 am »
I wish I had your optimisim.  I'm pretty nervous about it.  If Kerry does win, though, it will be so much fun.  I live in rural Utah.  There is probably not a more concervative place in the nation.  I am part of a VERY small minority of liberals in the area.  I can think of about 20 or 30 people at work and school that I'll be able to have endless fun with if Bush gets the boot.
Check out my website for in-depth reviews of children's books, games, and educational apps for the iPad:

Best Kid iPad Apps

Mameotron

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re:Good debate
« Reply #185 on: October 12, 2004, 04:43:42 am »

"I don't know how to break this to you, but the "looks" of people have everything to do with who we investigate."
and then:
"...fighting for OUR cause"
Is stopping people, questioning them, and threatening them for no reason OUR cause?  It's not mine.

Fredster:  He didn't do anything.  They told him they could detain him under the "Patriot" Act if he didn't answer their questions.  And yes, he was "just late".  Of course he wasn't paid for that lost time.  But if you and Drew feel safer because someone was stopped and threatened to be held indefinately simply because of how he looks, I guess all is well.  Maybe you'd feel better if they were somehow branded once their documents were checked?>:(



This exact scenario happened to me, but it was around 1993.  I was driving on the interstate through Nashville, TN in the middle of the afternoon.  As I went around a curve, a police car in the opposite direction pulled an immediate u-turn, lights and sirens blaring.  I pulled over, and was told to get out, put my hands on the hood, spread 'em, etc.  Then about 4 more police cars all piled up on me.  I was questioned for about a half an hour while they ran my driver's liscense, plates, checked my VIN #, and asked me over and over:  is this your truck you're driving, where are you going, where did you just come from?  When it was all over, the origional cop said that he pulled me over because I had out of state plates and he wanted me to be aware that the speed limit was about to change.

Later I saw on the news that they were looking for a kidnapping suspect, who was reported to be driving a blue truck just like what I was driving.

If this had happened today I'm sure they would have threatened me with the patriot act, too.  Sometimes these things happen.  I wish they didn't, but I'm glad they were looking for the bad guys.

Dartful Dodger

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3488
  • Last login:July 23, 2012, 11:21:39 pm
  • Newer isn't always better.
Re:Good debate
« Reply #186 on: October 12, 2004, 12:18:21 pm »
I wish I had your optimisim.  I'm pretty nervous about it.  If Kerry does win, though, it will be so much fun.  I live in rural Utah.  There is probably not a more concervative place in the nation.  I am part of a VERY small minority of liberals in the area.  I can think of about 20 or 30 people at work and school that I'll be able to have endless fun with if Bush gets the boot.

Again this is the only reason people have for voting for Kerry.  They just want Bush to lose.

patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Good debate
« Reply #187 on: October 12, 2004, 03:26:10 pm »
I wish I had your optimisim.  I'm pretty nervous about it.  If Kerry does win, though, it will be so much fun.  I live in rural Utah.  There is probably not a more concervative place in the nation.  I am part of a VERY small minority of liberals in the area.  I can think of about 20 or 30 people at work and school that I'll be able to have endless fun with if Bush gets the boot.

Again this is the only reason people have for voting for Kerry.  They just want Bush to lose.
Too bad they can't vote for Saddam
This signature is intentionally left blank

Dartful Dodger

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3488
  • Last login:July 23, 2012, 11:21:39 pm
  • Newer isn't always better.
Re:Good debate
« Reply #188 on: October 12, 2004, 03:34:45 pm »
This will be a good debate.

The Gun Debate

An interesting question on this website is:
Quote
Should the United States Senate support the proposed United Nations treaty that bans ownership of guns?

I didn't even know the UN had such a proposal.

Luckily for me the US doesn't take orders from the UN.

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Good debate
« Reply #189 on: October 12, 2004, 03:38:39 pm »
I didn't even know the UN had such a proposal.

Oh, yes.   The UN is very anti-private ownership of guns.

And the answer to the question is obvious:
HELL no.




Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Good debate
« Reply #190 on: October 12, 2004, 03:51:51 pm »
Again this is the only reason people have for voting for Kerry.  They just want Bush to lose.

My reasons for voting for Kerry:
Kerry will get the Nuke stuff under control (old U.S.S.R. & N. Korea) sooner.
The "Patriot" Act is wrong.
Kerry can handle Iraq better.
I'm Pro-choice.
I'm afraid of who Bush would put on the Supreme Court.
The national debt.
Kerry won't shaft our Canadian friends over re: Iraq reconstruction.
Kerry will respect the International Laws that we agreed on.
Adult stem cells are junk.  Doesn't anyone watch PBS?  Call M.I.T. and ask them.
The list goes on.

Bush has already started taking away your rights, I'm voting Kerry so we can keep guns.  (I just don't think we need flash suppressors)

Nobody wants to respond to Bush not watching the equipment that was the main reason for going into Iraq?  Or him ignoring the Geneva Convention?

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Good debate
« Reply #191 on: October 12, 2004, 04:08:37 pm »
Kerry will get the Nuke stuff under control (old U.S.S.R. & N. Korea) sooner.

Because....?


The "Patriot" Act is wrong.

Kerry voted for it.


Kerry can handle Iraq better.

Because...?  
Kerry plans to do exactly what Bush is already doing.  "More of the same" he calls it.


I'm Pro-choice.

Kerry believes human life begins at conception.


The national debt.

Kerry has proposed over $1,000,000,000,000 in new programmic spending.


Kerry won't shaft our Canadian friends over re: Iraq reconstruction.

So...  to the bystander goes the spoils?
Why shoud lcountries that did not participate in the war be allowed to profit from the war?


Kerry will respect the International Laws that we agreed on.

At the expense of our national security.


Adult stem cells are junk.  Doesn't anyone watch PBS?  Call M.I.T. and ask them.

No oneis preventing anyone from researching stem cells.


The list goes on.

And, most likely, whatever other reason you might gove, Kerry has taken a contrary stance.



Bush has already started taking away your rights, I'm voting Kerry so we can keep guns.  (I just don't think we need flash suppressors)

Kerry has sponsored gun bans.   He has supported and voted for them.  Kerry has voted for every single piece of federal gun control legislation thats made it to a vote.

How is it that Bush, not Kerry, is trying to take away your gun rights.

(Note:   Flash suppressors are not, and never were, banned)


Nobody wants to respond to Bush not watching the equipment that was the main reason for going into Iraq?

I thought there were no WMD/WMD programs in Iraq?


Or him ignoring the Geneva Convention?

Kerry is a self-described and self-admitted war criminal.
Quote

shmokes

  • Just think of all the suffering in this world that could have been avoided had I just been a little better informed. :)
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10471
  • Last login:September 24, 2016, 06:50:42 pm
  • Don't tread on me.
    • Jake Moses
Re:Good debate
« Reply #192 on: October 12, 2004, 04:16:17 pm »

Again this is the only reason people have for voting for Kerry.  They just want Bush to lose.

And again, what's your point?  How many times do you have to be told that we only have two viable choices.  I am required to be governed by one of them.  Does it make you feel any better to know that I didn't vote for Kerry in the primary?  That I would have preferred someone more liberal than Kerry?  Would it have made any sense to you whatsoever for someone who voted for McCain to turn around and vote for Gore solely because Bush was not his first choice EVEN THOUGH BUSH STILL REPRESENTS HIS VIEWS BETTER THAN GORE WOULD HAVE?

Can you not extend your silly logic one step further and see the inevitable conclusion that if I want Bush to lose, I, by default, want Kerry to win?

Dartful, you keep coming back to this, and when I explain it to you I get nothing.  I'm sure I can explain this to you if you just tell me what you don't get about it.  

Would a picture help?  Here...let me draw you a little picture...
Check out my website for in-depth reviews of children's books, games, and educational apps for the iPad:

Best Kid iPad Apps

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Good debate
« Reply #193 on: October 12, 2004, 04:24:00 pm »
Can you not extend your silly logic one step further and see the inevitable conclusion that if I want Bush to lose, I, by default, want Kerry to win?

Anyone But Bush!  Anyone But Bush!  Anyone But Bush!  
Anyone But Bush!  Anyone But Bush!  Anyone But Bush!
Anyone But Bush!  Anyone But Bush!  Anyone But Bush!
Anyone But Bush!  Anyone But Bush!  Anyone But Bush!

The Democrats could run Yassir Arafat!!!!
I'd vote for him!!!

Anyone But Bush!  Anyone But Bush!  Anyone But Bush!
Anyone But Bush!  Anyone But Bush!  Anyone But Bush!
Anyone But Bush!  Anyone But Bush!  Anyone But Bush!
Anyone But Bush!  Anyone But Bush!  Anyone But Bush!



Your graph is ridiculous.   Kerry isnt conservative, except in realtion to a (very very) few people that are to the EXTREME left.



DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #194 on: October 12, 2004, 04:29:12 pm »
Would a picture help?  Here...let me draw you a little picture...
I think that's funny as all get out!  
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #195 on: October 12, 2004, 04:35:30 pm »
Adult stem cells are junk.  Doesn't anyone watch PBS?  Call M.I.T. and ask them.
and yet they happen to be the only ones people are claiming to show promise, while they pound away at embryonic cells, and have yet to have something to show for it.

results vs. no results.  Somehow that = junk, but I don't have the number for M.I.T. to verify it.   ::)

Again it comes down to "semantics".  Bush hasn't banned research on embryonic stem cells, and has funded stem cell research, INCLUDING embryonic stem cells.

There's even a link provided so you can see the limitations regarding embryonic stem cell research.  Why would there be limitations on something that is banned?  I'll call M.I.T. to see if they can get me an answer to THAT that makes sense.
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

shmokes

  • Just think of all the suffering in this world that could have been avoided had I just been a little better informed. :)
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10471
  • Last login:September 24, 2016, 06:50:42 pm
  • Don't tread on me.
    • Jake Moses
Re:Good debate
« Reply #196 on: October 12, 2004, 05:01:06 pm »
Your graph is ridiculous.   Kerry isnt conservative, except in realtion to a (very very) few people that are to the EXTREME left.

Don't get your panties in a twist, TA.  The graph isn't exactly scientific.  I made it in about two minutes.  It's there to illustrate a point.  If you want to move Kerry further to the left, fine; the better my point is illustrated.  You know what's ridiculous?  It's ridiculous that you can't understand what I'm saying.  The only way you could refute my point would be to move Kerry to the right of Bush, or to move me to the right of Kerry.  As long as Kerry sits between Bush and myself on the graph his views are closer to mine than Bush's.  This ain't rocket science.  Do you need me to draw another picture, but with crayons this time?

And Kerry is conservative.  He may be liberal compared to other senators, but the senate is bereft of liberals.  The Democratic party has largely left liberalism behind in favor of moderatism (if that's even a word), hence the emergence of the Green party.  Compare him with politicians in Europe and he is conservative.  Our country as a whole, can certainly be characterized as puritanical and conservative.  The political spectrum does not begin and end with democrats and republicans.  If Kerry is at the fringe of the left-wing, where the hell do you put socialists?

edit:  BTW, Mosely-Braun and Dean are both more liberal than Kerry.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2004, 05:29:41 pm by shmokes »
Check out my website for in-depth reviews of children's books, games, and educational apps for the iPad:

Best Kid iPad Apps

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Good debate
« Reply #197 on: October 12, 2004, 06:24:49 pm »
This ain't rocket science.

And yet, you blew it.



And Kerry is conservative.  

Really.
And which of traditionally conservative principles does he stand for?

I bet I can find something in his voting record that says otherwise.



He may be liberal compared to other senators,

Almost all of them, you mean.

but the senate is bereft of liberals.  

I know.   Kinda heightens my point.



The political spectrum does not begin and end with democrats and republicans.

This is true.   But to lable the Dems as anyting but a moderate-left to hard left party is either deny reality or to delude yourself.



If Kerry is at the fringe of the left-wing, where the hell do you put socialists?

Kerry IS a socialist.


Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Good debate
« Reply #198 on: October 12, 2004, 06:30:13 pm »
[Kerry will get the Nuke stuff under control (old U.S.S.R. & N. Korea) sooner.
Because he will begin additional talks directly with N. Korea and will speed up the plan to account for the old U.S.S.R.'s weapons.

The "Patriot" Act is wrong.
Bush wants to extend the portions of it set to expire and add more to it.


Kerry can handle Iraq better.
Because he will allow more countries to do more work rather than throw a flaming bag of... on their doorstep.  I've never heard or seen anything where Kerry plans to do "More of the same".  That's Bush talking.

I'm Pro-choice.
"Kerry believes human life begins at conception."
Yes, he does.  And so do I.  However, I think that women should have the right to choose.  So does he.  Bush rips on him because Kerry wouldn't vote for a bill that would require a girl to inform her father she wanted an abortion even if he was the one who raped her.  That's plain wrong.


The national debt.
"Kerry has proposed over $1,000,000,000,000 in new programmic spending."
Go to his site and browse.  It doesn't bite.  Send an email to them if you need more info.

Kerry won't shaft our Canadian friends over re: Iraq reconstruction.
"So...  to the bystander goes the spoils?
Why shoud lcountries that did not participate in the war be allowed to profit from the war?"

Canada isn't a bystander.  I believe they have sent something in the neighborhood of $190 million to Iraq and they have troops in Afganistan.  Bush doesn't like the fact they wouldn't stand behind him at the UN.

Kerry will respect the International Laws that we agreed on.
"At the expense of our national security."
Does the end justify the means?  How many rights are you willing to give up?  What if Bush wanted to take away the 2nd amendment?
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin (1759)


Adult stem cells are junk.  Doesn't anyone watch PBS?  Call M.I.T. and ask them.
"No oneis preventing anyone from researching stem cells."
Yes, they most certainly are!  The term "stem cells" is like the term "automobile".  There are types of stem cell research.  Bush likes ADULT stem cell research.  I like EMBRIONIC stem cell research.  You need to understand what a stem cell is.  An EMBRYONIC stem cell can be used for anything and comes from an ebryo (I think about four days old).  An ADULT stem cell has already gained a "disposition" for something less generic.  I'll give an example from the M.I.T. lab and answer Drew at the same time.  I saw this on a program called "Body Building" on PBS.  On this program, M.I.T. showed off some heart muscle they made.  It was grown in a petree dish and when it was jolted with an electric current, it started beating all on it's own.  Sure makes patching somebody's heart easier when the stuff actually IS heart.  they have also taken adult stem cells from a rats brain and got new neurons.  Nice way to get someone paralyzed moving again huh?  Only the neurons didn't all work right.  Is it because they were adult stem cells?  Nobody will know because we can't do the same experiment with embryonic stem cells.  IMO, embryonic stem cells are to modern medicine as the atom is to modern science.

On August 9th, 2001, President Bush announced that his administration would ban federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research, characterizing the embryos these cells come from as "the seeds of the next generation." But, acknowledging that "research offers hope that millions of our loved ones may be cured of a disease and rid of their suffering," Bush also said he would allow funding research on the sixty lines of stem cells already harvested by private researchers. <- THAT is how you put limitations on something that is banned.  The limits apply to what was already aquired.  Bush's full speech can be found here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.html

So we have 60 stem cell lines available right? Wrong.  This is a good article about the show i watched: http://www.pbs.org/saf/1209/features/stemcell.htm
"Of those 60 lines, Melton estimates only 20 are still able to give rise to useful cells. Of those, about half are owned by private companies or foreign countries, neither of which are under any obligation to share their wealth with American government researchers. Of the handful remaining, some simply don't work. They don't propagate new cells, and researchers do not yet know why.

"While, this number 60 seems stuck in everyone's head, the number is definitely less than ten," says Melton. "So there is an insufficient number.""

Bush has already started taking away your rights, I'm voting Kerry so we can keep guns.  (I just don't think we need flash suppressors)
"How is it that Bush, not Kerry, is trying to take away your gun rights."
TA, you know very well how many people don't like guns.  Bush is already trying to take away some of your rights with "Patriot" Act II.  With more & more people willing to give up our rights in order to feel "safe", how long before they knock on the door of the 2nd Amendment?  Here's a good quote: "We must always remember that terrorists do not just target our lives - they target our way of life. John Kerry and John Edwards believe in an America that is safe and free, and they will protect our personal liberties as well as our personal security."  Ripped from their website.  I can't find anything on the Bush site about protecting our liberties.  We have thousands overseas fighting for freedom, let's protect it here while they're away.

"(Note:   Flash suppressors are not, and never were, banned)"
IMO, they should be.  No reason for them.  Unless I can get grenades or at least TNT.  Then we'd have some F U N  8)

Nobody wants to respond to Bush not watching the equipment that was the main reason for going into Iraq?
"I thought there were no WMD/WMD programs in Iraq?"
Read the link.  High precision tools etc.  that could be used for that purpose.  Follow that link and all will become clear.

Or him ignoring the Geneva Convention?
"Kerry is a self-described and self-admitted war criminal."
Homework TA: http://www.factcheck.org/article244.html

patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Good debate
« Reply #199 on: October 12, 2004, 06:48:17 pm »
I wonder why we even respond to that "clone of the Floyd script". Scripts don't "understand", they merely ask semi-related questions to keep the conversation going. If we keep this up someone is gonna win a turing test.
This signature is intentionally left blank

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #200 on: October 12, 2004, 07:00:48 pm »
The graph isn't exactly scientific.
:D Dude, you're KILLING ME here!  I like the addition of "exactly"....that's just friggen classic!  

And to think, I was just about to ask you to post your source for that graph ;)

Quote
Do you need me to draw another picture, but with crayons this time?
STOP!  Man, it's like you're stealing a comedy bit from me or something!

I'm gonna need duct tape to keep my sides from splitting! :)

Quote
edit:  BTW, Mosely-Braun and Dean are both more liberal than Kerry.
next time you'll have to include a legend with your graphs so we can decipher them :D
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Good debate
« Reply #201 on: October 12, 2004, 07:07:22 pm »
Because he will begin additional talks directly with N. Korea and will speed up the plan to account for the old U.S.S.R.'s weapons.

Bilaleral talks w/ NK is a poor idea.  Its a far better idea to introduce pressure from NKs neighbors as well as from us- China and Russia are big players in NKs world, and their opinion cannot be ignored.

Talking with NK bilaterally undermines the power of multilateral pressure.

We've all heard him -say- he will "speed up" destruction of the Russian nukes.  No one know how, however, he will do this.


Bush wants to extend the portions of (the patriot act) set to expire and add more to it.

This doesnt change the fact that Kerry voted for it.

Your complaint was with the Patriot act; now it has shifted to something related, but different.  If you oppose Bush because of its creation, thgen you must also oppose the people that helped create it.


Because he will allow more countries to do more work rather than throw a flaming bag of... on their doorstep.  

Whats this supposed to mean?  When has Bush ever denied anyone an opportunity to help out in Iraq?


I've never heard or seen anything where Kerry plans to do "More of the same".  That's Bush talking.

Kerry has a plan for Iraq - 4 points.
All 4 of them are things Bush is already doing.
So, if Kerry plans to do what Bush is already doing, and Kerry describes what Bush is doing as "more of the same", then by necessity, Kerry plans on "more of the same" as well.


"Kerry believes human life begins at conception."

Yes, he does.  And so do I.  However, I think that women should have the right to choose.  So does he.

Interesting.
A mother has the right to choose to kill a human life before birth, but not after?   How does that make sense?


Bush rips on him because Kerry wouldn't vote for a bill that would require a girl to inform her father she wanted an abortion even if he was the one who raped her.  That's plain wrong.

Why?  We all know that the rights of children are nowhere near as strong as the right of adults.  You're specifying a single, unusual instance where such a thing might be a bad idea - does that outweight all of the ways its s GOOD idea?


Go to his site and browse.  It doesn't bite.  Send an email to them if you need more info.

How about you just tell me how Kerry plans to pay for that $1,000,000,000,000 spending increase.

While you're at it, tell me how he plans to save SocSEc w/o reducing benefits, rasiing the retirement age, allowing any sort of privatization, or raising FICA deductions.


Canada isn't a bystander.  I believe they have sent something in the neighborhood of $190 million to Iraq and they have troops in Afganistan.  Bush doesn't like the fact they wouldn't stand behind him at the UN.

And so I ask again:
Why should a country that did not participate in the war bve allowed to profit from it?


Kerry will respect the International Laws that we agreed on.
"At the expense of our national security."
Does the end justify the means?  How many rights are you willing to give up?  What if Bush wanted to take away the 2nd amendment?

How is this relevant to my response?


"No oneis preventing anyone from researching stem cells."
Yes, they most certainly are!

No.  They arent.
Bush said there would be limited federal spending on certain stem cells.
Nowhere is there a ban on private research - or even research done by the states.


"How is it that Bush, not Kerry, is trying to take away your gun rights?"
TA, you know very well how many people don't like guns.  Bush is already trying to take away some of your rights with "Patriot" Act II.

I don't see an answer to my question.

 
"(Note:   Flash suppressors are not, and never were, banned)"
IMO, they should be.  No reason for them.

No reason for a car that can go above 70.
No reason for a TV.   No reason for a microwave.
No reason for a lot of things.  Does that mean they all get banned?


"Kerry is a self-described and self-admitted war criminal."
Homework TA:

That's nice... but it doesnt really address the issue.

Here's what Kerry said, 18 APR 1971, Meet the Press:
Note the bold.

MR. CROSBY NOYES (Washington Evening Star): Mr. Kerry, you said at one time or another that you think our policies in Vietnam are tantamount to genocide and that the responsibility lies at all chains of command over there. Do you consider that you personally as a Naval officer committed atrocities in Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?

KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals."

Please tell me how this direct answer to adirect question is not an open admission to having comitted war crimes, and thus, being a war criminal?


saint

  • turned to the Dark Side
  • Supreme Chancellor
  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6068
  • Last login:March 27, 2020, 04:12:21 pm
  • I only work in cyberspace...
    • Build Your Own Arcade Controls
Re:Good debate
« Reply #202 on: October 12, 2004, 10:47:51 pm »
I just can't resist...

Bush wants to extend the portions of (the patriot act) set to expire and add more to it.

This doesnt change the fact that Kerry voted for it.

Your complaint was with the Patriot act; now it has shifted to something related, but different.  If you oppose Bush because of its creation, thgen you must also oppose the people that helped create it.

Not so. It is possible to decide that the Patriot Act was a bad decision, regardless of who voted for it to begin with. If someone believes it was a bad decision, and you have two candidates - 1 who will attempt to strengthen the act, and another who will not attempt to strengthen it, then logic dictates you vote for the candidate who will take the course of action more in line with your beliefs. If a candidate was not in line with your way of thinking previously, but now is while the other candidate remains contrary to your position, then it is illogical to follow the line that "you must also oppose the people that helped create it."

-----------------

Quote
Quote
Because he will allow more countries to do more work rather than throw a flaming bag of... on their doorstep.  

Whats this supposed to mean?  When has Bush ever denied anyone an opportunity to help out in Iraq?

and (slightly out of order but from your same post) . . .

Quote
Canada isn't a bystander.  I believe they have sent something in the neighborhood of $190 million to Iraq and they have troops in Afganistan.  Bush doesn't like the fact they wouldn't stand behind him at the UN.

And so I ask again:
Why should a country that did not participate in the war bve allowed to profit from it?

Aren't these two essentially contradictory statements of yours? On the first hand you ask when Bush has ever denied anyone the opportunity to help out in Iraq (implying that he has not denied anyone that opportunity), then you ask why a country should be allowed to profit from the war which implies that Bush is within his rights to deny someone the opportunity to help out in Iraq (apparently as justification for having done just that). Perhaps I misunderstand your perspective here. You certainly could squeak by on this one with semantics, but the spirit of what you said certainly seems contradictory here.

---------------

Quote
"Kerry believes human life begins at conception."

Yes, he does.  And so do I.  However, I think that women should have the right to choose.  So does he.

Interesting.
A mother has the right to choose to kill a human life before birth, but not after?   How does that make sense?

This sure is a tough moral decision, but it is a consistent belief set. The thinking goes something like this:
a. I believe abortion is murder.
b. I believe that belief is my own personal set of moral values (shared by some, not by others).
c. I believe it is not my place to impose my own moral values upon another. Persuade, counsel, inform... sure. To impose? No.
d. Therefore, though I believe abortion is murder, I do not believe my country should outlaw abortion, as it is not my decision to make for another person.

There's lots of points of view to discuss about this, and I'll segue briefly about them, but they are not the main point here. The main point here is that it is entirely a consistent set of beliefs and moral code to believe that abortion is murder while also believing that it is not something anyone should dictate to another.

RE: Abortion. Did you know that the Jewish faith believes a fetus is not a person until it is born (http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_abor.htm)?  It is potential for life until then. Don't forget that Christ was a Jew who stated (I am not a biblical scholar, take my quote with a grain of salt) "think not that I've come to destroy the law and the prophets - I've come not to destroy them but to fulfill them." (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/matthew.html). Does that mean traditional Christian views on abortion are misguided? I don't know, that's something for more spiritually minded scholars than I to debate.

Another perspective is that if I believe that abortion is murder, then I should do everything I can to prevent abortions, including voting to outlaw them. Certainly a valid perspective, if one I do not agree with. To those who believe that though, one must ask: If you believe in outlawing abortion because it is murder, then why are you not (assuming you're not which is a fairly safe assumption based on public trends but obviously not a guarantee because I don't know you as an individual) demanding of our government, with the same fervor that you are demanding the outlawing of abortion, that our government step in immediately to stop genocide and atrocities in the many places around the country in which it is taking place? I often hear that America needs to be responsible for taking care of it's own issues and cannot be the world police. How can stand before God and declare that one child is worth saving because that child lives in your country, while a child in another country wasn't worth your efforts? What kind of moral belief system is that?

I personally admit to being very torn over abortion. I do believe abortion is murder. I believe a fetus becomes a life sometime around when the brain and nervous system begin to operate. I don't know when that is, I don't know when the soul enters the body. If I can't come to grips with where I stand, who the hell am I to dictate to another?

Abortion is an issue where I can truly get a feel for what each side believes, and really wasn't the point of this response. The point of this response, and the above background material, is to state (restate?) this: The fact that John Kerry believes life begins at conception, and the fact that he is pro-choice, are not mutually exclusive. They are the same or very similar to the beliefs that I hold today. That would be a valid reason for me to consider voting for John Kerry versus George Bush. It does not have to be a vote against George Bush's point of view, it can be a vote for John Kerry's point of view.

-----------------

Quote
Bush rips on him because Kerry wouldn't vote for a bill that would require a girl to inform her father she wanted an abortion even if he was the one who raped her.  That's plain wrong.

Why?  We all know that the rights of children are nowhere near as strong as the right of adults.  You're specifying a single, unusual instance where such a thing might be a bad idea - does that outweight all of the ways its s GOOD idea?

This has to be one of the most dishonest and disingenuous forms of campaigning and opponent smearing that is ever used (I mean in general, not necessarily this instance specifically). A candidate will vote against a particular bill because of a single or small group of line items or clauses in a bill. The candidate can be an outspoken proponent of the rest of the bill, but strongly opposed to the final results of the bill after the various committees and amendments are finished with it. Then the candidate's opponents use that vote to state that the candidate is either lying about their belief on an issue or to state that they are against something that they are in fact for. This is one of the lowest form of politicking around (is that a word?) and I repeat what I've said before, people should be ashamed of themselves for engaging in it. That's not a slam at you, that's a slam at campaigns who use such tactics.

A bill that is widely supported in general, but voted down because of specific phrasing or clauses, stands a good chance of being reintroduced in a slightly different form. The overall intent is passed while the specific objections are defeated. This is the way our legislative system works. I personally think presidents should have line item veto power, and that amendments should not be possible if they don't pertain to the bill at hand (adding for instance funding for a weapons program as a rider to a social welfare bill, to give a fictitious but plausible example). That's another issue however (who decides what is and isn't pertinent?.  

In this specific case, I agree whole heartedly that this was a flawed bill based on what has been presented here. There should be a clause in the bill that allows for the court to step in in place of the notification of the parents. This is something for which we have plenty of precedence. The legal system frequently takes parental rights away and assigns them to the court or to a court appointed guardian. I'm all for adult supervision of some kind over a child facing the decision to abort or not to abort. However, it should be possible for the child to seek out, through the help of a doctor or social worker or other legislated process, assistance from the court in granting permission for an abortion that does not require parental consent or notification. I would hope that it would rarely be used, and that the courts would have the wisdom to distinguish between a child who is ashamed or illogically afraid of telling a parent (in which case they would require parental notification) and the case in which a child is genuinely in a position where going to the parent is a bad idea (rape/incest, absentee parent, etc...). You indicate that this is a single, unusual instance... God I hope that's so, but I fear it's not nearly as unusual as you believe.

It wouldn't have been difficult to meet the spirit of the bill (parental oversight and rights) while still protecting the rights of the child. Children do have rights, and when a parent is abusing their own rights, that child should have the right to have society step in and help, superseding the rights of the abusive parent.

The fact that John Kerry voted against this bill does not necessarily make him a bad person or unwise leader. Sometimes voting for something that's "close enough" is not good enough, when you intend to hold out for a better version of the bill. Now, I don't know whether he did or didn't have in mind a better version of this bill. Knowing what I know of John Kerry I suspect he did, but I don't know the specifics of this particular bill and vote. I can however state that George Bush using this vote as a weapon against John Kerry, without describing the context of the vote, is mudslinging politics as usual. NOTE: I believe the Kerry campaign is capable of the same tactics and probably has used them -- two wrongs don't make a right, shame on them both and anyone who uses this kind of political double-speak and lying by omission.

---------------------

Quote
Kerry will respect the International Laws that we agreed on.
"At the expense of our national security."

Maybe, maybe not. Backing out of the Kyoto treaty had nothing to do with national security though. We went from mandating a 33% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to offering financial incentives to US companies to reach a goal of 4.5% reduction instead (CNN: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/globalwarming/. Fox News with much different numbers but essentially same story: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,26665,00.html). Bush believes the goal was too hard (so why even try? I really don't understand that) and damaging to the US economy. I understand the concern about the damage to the US economy, but don't believe that fear was sufficient to back out of the treaty that 37 other industrialized nations are committing to. I believe in a strong defense including our right to pre-emptive action when warranted (without voting one way or another on whether or not it was time for pre-emptive action in Iraq), but this is a global economy and a global ecosystem. America is one of, if not the, biggest forces in the world politically, militarily, economically, environmentally, etc... With that kind of influence comes an enormous responsibility to be responsible stewards of that kind of power. We damned well better learn to become responsible members of the world, and frankly moves like backing out of the Kyoto treaty and restarting nuclear weapons development is the exact opposite of responsibility. The consequences of not being good global citizens can and probably will be further declining of the environment (possibly to life-threatening levels), continuing decline of support for America globally, economic sanctions on America (the EU has already made overtures in that regard), and possibly even military and further terror actions against the U.S.  If someone is causing you harm or demonstrating the potential and likelihood to cause you harm, and cannot be reasoned with to a level that you find acceptable, then forcing them to modify their behavior is the next logical step through one of the means just listed. That's essentially the reasoning we used for invading Iraq. It scares me that more people, particularly political leaders, don't seem to understand or believe this.

---------------------

--- saint




« Last Edit: October 12, 2004, 10:56:11 pm by saint »
--- John St.Clair
     Build Your Own Arcade Controls FAQ
     http://www.arcadecontrols.com/
     Project Arcade 2!
     http://www.projectarcade2.com/
     saint@arcadecontrols.com

Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Good debate
« Reply #203 on: October 12, 2004, 11:01:23 pm »
On Nukes
"Its a far better idea to introduce pressure from NKs neighbors as well as from us-"  That's Kerry's thought too.
I don't have Kerry's step-by-step plan for securing those materials.  What I do have though is a couple interesting points:
1- Less material was secured in the 2 years after 9/11 than the 2 years before.
2- The last summit between Russia & the US (Sept. 2003) didn't even address this issue.
So if Kerry simply brings it up at the next summit, how can it not be sped up?  Now consider he sees it an issue.  It will be brought up and something will be worked out.  If Bush really was so concerned, wouldn't he have brought it up?

On "Patriot" Act
"thgen you must also oppose the people that helped create it."
Haha, I don't agree with everyone, all the time, on every issue.  Never have, never will.  That doesn't mean I have to "oppose" them.  Until I run for office, there will never be a candidate that values everything the way I do. ;)
Parts of the "Patriot" Act had expiration dates.  Bush will extend those dates and add more to it.  The draft that is currently available makes it even worse.  Kerry wants to plug the holes where the "Patriot" Act I is being abused while changing some things to preserve our rights.  Not invade them like Bush wants to.

On stem cells:
Prevent def: To keep from happening: took steps to prevent the strike.
To keep (someone) from doing something; impede: prevented us from winning.
To present an obstacle:
Archaic. To anticipate or counter in advance.
Archaic. To come before; precede.
Does banning the use of federal funds impede the embryonic stem cell research?  Yes.  Does it present an obstacle?  Yes.  So is Bush preventing the research?  Yes.

"Whats this supposed to mean?  When has Bush ever denied anyone an opportunity to help out in Iraq?"
What?  Where are you?  Where have you been?  Let me catch you up to speed.  To be involved in the rebuilding of Iraq as a prime contractor you must say "Bush is great, he is right" 3 times in the UN.  Otherwise get lost.  He'll still take the money if you give it, but you have to do the UN chant or else you're still out.  Hence the flaming bag.  Just ask the Canadians if you don't believe me.  So I would say Bush is almost "preventing" (see definition above) others from helping.

"Kerry has a plan for Iraq - 4 points.
All 4 of them are things Bush is already doing."

Post the link, I'll show you what's up.

"A mother has the right to choose to kill a human life before birth, but not after?  How does that make sense?"
It makes sense because it's not my decision.  I don't think people should buy Saturns, I don't think people should do drugs, I don't think someones daughter should have to prove to me she was raped to have an abortion or be forced to give birth to her Grandpa's kid or some ridiculous thing.  If she got pregnant because she made a "mistake" and chooses to abort, that's a decision she lives with, not me.  But anyhow, this is my justification, not either candidates so we'll save it for another thread, another time.

Bush rips on him because Kerry wouldn't vote for a bill that would require a girl to inform her father she wanted an abortion even if he was the one who raped her.  That's plain wrong.
"Why?  We all know that the rights of children are nowhere near as strong as the right of adults.  You're specifying a single, unusual instance where such a thing might be a bad idea - does that outweight all of the ways its s GOOD idea?"
Hell yes it does.  I don't know how "singular" something like this is, and it shouldn't matter.  Kerry said if the law had put this exception in it he would have voted for it.  We should be asking why Bush didn't want it included. :-X

"How about you just tell me..."
How about you just go and get it straight from the source?  Really, his site won't bite you.

"And so I ask again:
Why should a country that did not participate in the war bve allowed to profit from it?"

And so I say again Canada wasn't a bystander, they did participate.  And what is with this "Profit talk" I keep hearing.  Was this a business venture?

I straightened up the loose text from my last post:
Kerry will respect the International Laws that we agreed on.
"At the expense of our national security."
Does the end justify the means?  Meaning: Bush is breaking the Geneva Convention.  That makes Bush a war criminal.  Inargueable fact.  And we all know how you feel about war criminals.

"How is it that Bush, not Kerry, is trying to take away your gun rights?"
TA, you know very well how many people don't like guns.  Bush is already trying to take away some of your rights with "Patriot" Act II.  How many rights are you willing to give up?  What if Bush wanted to take away the 2nd amendment?  Kerry wants to restore those rights that the "Patriot" Act has made... well... "confusing" to some government types.  Long story short:  Kerry wants you to keep your rights, Bush does not.  I want someone in office that will let us keep the rights our soldiers are fighting to give others.

Back to the topic of war criminals.
You stopped your bolding too soon regarding Kerry's "admission".  here's what you missed:  "...and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down."  Guess what?  Looks like things haven't changed one bit now that Bush is in charge.  Kerry said he was following orders that violated the Geneva Convention, Bush is giving them.

Ouch huh?

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #204 on: October 12, 2004, 11:30:12 pm »
saint, ...darnit, I was gonna say something, but now I can't remember....friggen senior moments  ::)

Something about Cuba, I think.....and a Hertz truck  ;)


Clear points, those.
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

GGKoul

  • Cheesecake Apprentice
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4723
  • Last login:July 23, 2019, 05:47:30 pm
  • I was once a big man!! -4700 posts later...
Re:Good debate
« Reply #205 on: October 12, 2004, 11:40:14 pm »
Canada isn't a bystander.  I believe they have sent something in the neighborhood of $190 million to Iraq and they have troops in Afganistan.  Bush doesn't like the fact they wouldn't stand behind him at the UN.

And so I ask again:
Why should a country that did not participate in the war bve allowed to profit from it?

Unofficially, Canadian Special Forces were on the ground when US attacked and are stilll there.  They assist in policing the various areas and maintain a position in Afganistan.  

The only people that are going to profit from the war in Iraq is GW's friends and the companies they represent.  




DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #206 on: October 13, 2004, 12:36:47 am »
This thread is moving all over the place!

What I'm responding to:
On stem cells:
Prevent def: To keep from happening: took steps to prevent the strike.
To keep (someone) from doing something; impede: prevented us from winning.
To present an obstacle:
Archaic. To anticipate or counter in advance.
Archaic. To come before; precede.
Does banning the use of federal funds impede the embryonic stem cell research?  Yes.  Does it present an obstacle?  Yes.  So is Bush preventing the research?  Yes.

Oh for the love of Pete....BUSH IS NOT PREVENTING THE RESEARCH!  -->CLICK HERE<-- to see the NIH's official resource page to see for yourself.


An excerpt to help in case you can't be bothered to check the link:  
     "On August 9, 2001, at 9:00 p.m. EDT, the President announced his decision to allow Federal funds to be used for research on existing human embryonic stem cell lines"  

Can you, for the love of Rudy, PLEASE explain how the fact that Bush allows Federal funds to be used for research on existing human embryonic stem cell ines means that "So is Bush preventing the research?  Yes."   ???

Quote
Does banning the use of federal funds impede the embryonic stem cell research?
THIS STATEMENT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE!  I know it seems to be an argument over a little word, but JUST BECAUSE he limited using Federal funds to EXISTING embryonic stem cells DOES NOT mean he has banned embryonic stem cell research

EXISTING lines.....what is it that Bush is allowing federal funds to be used on?  embryonic stem cells.  If they are existing lines, THEY EXIST, they ARE!  What ARE they?  Embryonic stem cells.

I could care less anymore who does or does not receive credit for supporting or funding or saying "mebbe we should give it a whack" or WHATEVER.  You simply MUST deal with the fact that he HAS allowed Federal funds to be used for embryonic stem cell research.

Do we SERIOUSLY need a dictionary lesson on what the word "BAN" means ?!?  Bush has NOT banned it, and, as a matter of public record, FACT, has indeed FUNDED it.  

Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

Mameotron

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re:Good debate
« Reply #207 on: October 13, 2004, 12:44:46 am »
Saint, YOU DA MAN!!!!

Finally, someone had the nerve to come right out and say, this is what I believe is morally right, and here's why.  I'll respond later, but I just had to salute you first!!

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:March 21, 2020, 11:17:37 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Good debate
« Reply #208 on: October 13, 2004, 01:08:11 am »
Ok, here....a little "research" on my part from the NIH's website.  

1)  On August 9, 2001, at 9:00 p.m. EDT, the President announced his decision to allow Federal funds to be used for research on existing human embryonic stem cell lines

2)  Why do scientists want to use stem cell lines?
Once a stem cell line is established from a cell in the body, it is essentially immortal, no matter how it was derived. That is, the researcher using the line will not have to go through the rigorous procedure necessary to isolate stem cells again. Once established, a cell line can be grown in the laboratory indefinitely and cells may be frozen for storage or distribution to other researchers.

3)  Federal funds to support hESC research have only been available since August 9, 2001, when President Bush announced his decision on Federal funding for hESC research

4)  As of September 1, 2003, there are 12 human embryonic stem cell lines that federally supported researchers can purchase.

5)  As of September 1, 2003, there are 12 human embryonic stem cell lines that federally supported researchers may purchase. This number is up from only one or two lines in Spring 2002. The increased availability of the lines is a direct consequence of NIH
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

Mameotron

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re:Good debate
« Reply #209 on: October 13, 2004, 05:06:19 am »


This sure is a tough moral decision, but it is a consistent belief set. The thinking goes something like this:
a. I believe abortion is murder.
b. I believe that belief is my own personal set of moral values (shared by some, not by others).
c. I believe it is not my place to impose my own moral values upon another. Persuade, counsel, inform... sure. To impose? No.
d. Therefore, though I believe abortion is murder, I do not believe my country should outlaw abortion, as it is not my decision to make for another person.


I can't accept that argument.  Basically, you are saying that while you have personal moral beliefs concerning murder, you don't think murder should be outlawed.  So you don't think it's right to arrest people for murder?  Forget about abortion, apply that argument to plain old manslaughter.  How can you say it is right to arrest people for one type of murder (manslaughter) but not for another (abortion)?  I'm assuming that you do believe murder is a crime that should be punished.

Quote
The main point here is that it is entirely a consistent set of beliefs and moral code to believe that abortion is murder while also believing that it is not something anyone should dictate to another.

That is your position, and I respect that.  I cannot tell you that it is wrong, because I believe that morality is a question we each have to answer for ourselves.  However, it is my moral position that to accept abortion as murder DOES exclude allowing it on any basis whatsoever.

Quote
RE: Abortion. Did you know that the Jewish faith believes a fetus is not a person until it is born (http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_abor.htm)?  It is potential for life until then. Don't forget that Christ was a Jew who stated (I am not a biblical scholar, take my quote with a grain of salt) "think not that I've come to destroy the law and the prophets - I've come not to destroy them but to fulfill them." (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/matthew.html). Does that mean traditional Christian views on abortion are misguided? I don't know, that's something for more spiritually minded scholars than I to debate.

Yes, Jesus was Jewish, and I'm glad you realize that.  It is a fact that most people seem to miss.  However, you must also realize that the Jewish Rabbis (back then, and still now) do not accept that Jesus was who he claimed to be.  They do not accept the validity of the New Testament.
The Jewish faith still believes in living by the rules set up in the old testament (sort of-  they have no central temple, and do not offer animal sacrifices.  This is absolutely the core of their relationship with God under the old testament).  The ten commandments came from the old testament, but so does the old adage, an eye for an eye...  Jesus endorsed the ten commandments, but never the old and outdated eye for an eye type of morality.  Jesus also said that the greatest commandment (aside from having no other God) was to love your neighbor (fellow man).  Through his actions and his teachings it is clear that murder is not condoned.  And, yes, most anti-abortionists point to the scripture reference that says "I knew you even while you were in the womb", which contradicts the old Jewish belief that life starts at birth.
So, if there seems to be a contradiction between the old testament and the new testament, remember that the reason Jesus came to earth in the first place is because God felt sorry for all t